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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   


My full deconstruction of this steaming pile of NIST dool is forthcoming.


Where is it Slaps? This is what I am asking for. Forget your previous posts, and post what you have. I ahve tried to remain civil and calm with you, but these cheap shots and calling me Daddy, they are really showing me who you are. A child. Post your information that you are stating that you have, or STFU
. If you need help with the acronym, I am sure there are people here who could help you.

If you are such the researching guru, you would take the time to show your posts. I am confident in myself, and that is why I want to read your research to see what it says. Why is that so hard to understand and provide? Is it because you don't have it? That would be my first guess.

I am trying to have an educated discussion, but for some reason you enjoy flaming a little more.



[edit on 23-10-2006 by esdad71]




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Where is it Slaps?


The good and recently retired Dr. is taking care of it for me. It will be posted as a totally seperate document in a few days.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
No offense to anybody but this is what a controlled demolition of a Skyscraper sounds and look's like.

video.google.com...


sometimes.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
So you cannot even draw up your own documents? Riding coattails again it would seem Slaps. C'mon, you can't even give us a taste of what you have, or are you hoping that by putting it off a few days people will forget about your claim? Do you have any original thoughts of your own?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jab712
Man Slap why are you soooo antagonistic and frankly...rude?

I have tried to search posts. Unless I am doing it wrong..


You are doing it wrong. My attitude is my business. If the admins get complaints I will be "punished"... ESDAD and some others I am addressing here KNOW THE HISTORY AND SCORE, they are just trying... as usual to play a game with the new readers.

Have you ever aske yourself why they would bother to post here if they believe the real story?

They wouldn't. Why would they waste a year TELLING us the real story is true but FAILING to enter into any REAL debate?

"They" NEVER respond to the scientific threads, EVER.

Untill ANY of them explains to me how the top 30 floors of WTC2 begin to rotate, encounter NO RESISTANCE except for air, suddenly stop rotating losing all rotational inertia (against Newton's law "an object in motion will tend...") and BOOM turns to a powdery dust... I just don;t care what they have to say.

I have NEVER seen ESDAD reply to a post with any sort of science, etc. You may want to stay out of this big fella.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
So you cannot even draw up your own documents? Riding coattails again it would seem Slaps. C'mon, you can't even give us a taste of what you have, or are you hoping that by putting it off a few days people will forget about your claim? Do you have any original thoughts of your own?


"Ridiing Coattails"? Give me a break.

All you do is quote books and the NIST. I will let ST911 publish their response and add my conclusions as necessary. Jones and Ryan are writing the document as we speak. I will not pretend to be smarter than these two gentle men combined.

You never answered my question dad: WHAT FIELDS ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO DEBATE IN AND WHY?

I will take you to task in YOUR OWN FIELD if you like.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
So, now we have the truth, that you are not writing anything, but you are waiting for the 911 truther's do it so you can ride the wave. This is not about Ph'd's or engineering at this point, because we have heard from both sides, and they have conflicting views on what happened.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

So, now we have the truth, that you are not writing anything, but you are waiting for the 911 truther's do it so you can ride the wave. This is not about Ph'd's or engineering at this point, because we have heard from both sides, and they have conflicting views on what happened.



Answer the question above.

Now do you see after my last two days of posting EXACTLY what the official line towers do?

I just did it in reverse and you feel I bring nothing to the table...

that is EXACTLY what you do, kettle.

I do not see INDEPENDANT researchers coming out to support the gov't. Only those sponsored by media outlets.

I do not see groups of them coming together... Scholars That 9/11 IS the TRUTH, or PILOTS That say 9/11 IS the truth... all I see is the opposite, Popular Mechanics and Nova.

I will now return to my regular posting style as I think I have proven my point on how it is to deal daily with the NIST, FEMA parrots.

And, no... the ST/911 commentary, I communicate with Dr. Jones on a regular basis, I am not "riding" anyones "coattails", I do not belive in wasting time on repitition. Just like when you ask me to REPOST everything I have ever posted here for your convenience and I refuse to do it... I DO NOT belive in repitition.

So, one last time, so that we can talk/communicate on common ground: What are you qualified to debate on and why?

Thanks,

Slappy



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
You didn't deal with anything, you just stated that you are actually the parrot your are accusing me of bieng. Media controlled outlets are all bs, huh? I guess all those people involved with popular mechanics, NIST,NOVA and the likes are all out to get you with the lies. Man, that is paranoia at it's best.

If you feel that Dr. Jones is the only one with the truth, that is your CHOICE. That is all it is, a choice. He is after attention, not the truth.

I am calling you out about the 'fanatastic evidence' you have that will make NIST look like drivel that you stated earlier in the post to have. One more time Slaps, where is it? Talking in circles might work with the mindless, but not here pal. put up, or shut up? which will it be? or has someone else not written it so there is no way that you can bite it and post it?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
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?




Here is a report on the diesel fuel.

www.wtc7.net...

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Here is a report on the diesel fuel.

www.wtc7.net...

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.


Reading that, I can understand why some people think the FEMA report is crap. That is confusing and inaccurate.

As I understand it, there were four underground storage tanks and one above ground storage tank at WTC 7 (not including the day tanks).

The majority of the diesel fuel from the two base building system tanks was largely recovered from the tanks (Approximately 20,000 gallons).

The two Solomon Smith Barney underground storage tanks were empty when they were accessed. I have not seen any information indicating that the fuel in them was released into the environment. Since these were underground storage tanks, I would expect that if both tanks were ruptured and the fuel released during the collapse, that the fuel would have spilled into the tank backfill zone and would have made a hell of an environmental mess. I think it would be highly unlikely that fuel spilled from the USTs would have subsequently burned in the debris pile fires.

On the other hand, I think it highly probable that the Mayor’s 3000 gallon tank on the second floor would have been toast. The collapse would ruptured it and spilled the fuel.

I can not see how FEMA can reach the conclusion that there was no fire on the ground floor just because the fuel in the base building USTs survived. A fire on the ground floor would not have impacted those tanks. They were underground.

The key question is: What happened to the fuel in the SSB tanks? 12,000 gallons is unaccounted for.

Since these were emergency generator tanks, and there was a company under a specific contract to maintain the tanks and keep them topped off at all times, it is safe to assume that they were full on the morning of 9/11.

From wtc.nist.gov...



The Salomon Brothers pressurized system is different. If the supply or return pipes were fractured along with the containment pipe and the generators started, the fuel pipes would be continuously pressurized, and any leak would continue until the storage tanks were empty as long as any one generator was running.

NIST reviewed the report of an environmental contractor (Langan 2002) hired in the months after the collapse of WTC 7 to recover remaining fuel and to mitigate any environmental damage from the Salomon Brothers tanks. The Salomon Brothers tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty, “ …

Neither the UST’s (underground storage tanks) nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either UST.” The tanks were installed on a concrete slab over existing silty sand. A layer of bedding gravel on the slab provided a foundation for the tank. Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below. Also, the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus, it is likely that a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination in this soil.


Even that statement may not be 100% totally correct, since the fuel system pumps operated on a separate battery system. It is possible that even if all of the generators shut down as their filters became clogged with WTC dust, that the primary fuel pump would have kept running. Not enough information on the system is available to know for sure.

The pressurized fuel pipe for this system ran in the vicinity of the observed damage to the south wall of the building.



[edit on 24-10-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

The pressurized fuel pipe for this system ran in the vicinity of the observed damage to the south wall of the building.


Which "observed" damage to the south face? Oh, you mean the SW corner? WCIP has proven that the South face damage is either a lie or exageration or both.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by HowardRoark

The pressurized fuel pipe for this system ran in the vicinity of the observed damage to the south wall of the building.


Which "observed" damage to the south face? Oh, you mean the SW corner? WCIP has proven that the South face damage is either a lie or exageration or both.


No he has not.

In any case, according to the NIST data, the pipe exits the core area proceeds to the south wall and goes west to the generator rooms.

There was physical damage to the building in the vicinity of this pipe.

It is a strong possibility that this pipe was damaged in such a way so that the leak detection system did not pick up the leak.

What is interesting, to me is that this system was specifically designed to circumvent the building codes limiting the maximum fuel storage on the generator floor to no more than 275 gallons.

Why is that not discussed further?

Are there other buildings with similer systems out there?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
No, HowardRoark, I'd say it's pretty case-closed.

Your only defense has been "well maybe there was still a hole there and we just can't see it!"

Maybe, but as Griff said, it couldn't have been the size NIST suggests, or we most definitely would have seen at least part of it. The actual damage shown in the Spak image is the SW corner damage, which has been shown conclusively enough.

Not that it matters anyway, because buildings don't collapse at free fall speed unless resistance has been knocked out for them ahead of time.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, HowardRoark, I'd say it's pretty case-closed.

Your only defense has been "well maybe there was still a hole there and we just can't see it!"

Maybe, but as Griff said, it couldn't have been the size NIST suggests, or we most definitely would have seen at least part of it. The actual damage shown in the Spak image is the SW corner damage, which has been shown conclusively enough.



Nope. I have looked at the "evidence" presented in that thread and the only thing that I can say that it sows is that there is extensive damage to the southwest corner of the building. The remaining parts of the building are obscured by smoke.

I will not argue this point. You can believe whatever you want to.



Not that it matters anyway, because buildings don't collapse at free fall speed unless resistance has been knocked out for them ahead of time.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by bsbray11]


So from the time thatthe first kink appears in the roof, the first penthouse collapses into the building and the remaining exterior collapses is "free fall time?" Dream on.

At any rate, I was discussing the situation of the deisel fuel oil in the building. But I thank you for your contribution to this thread, even though it is clearly an attempt to divert the topic.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Not that it matters anyway, because buildings don't collapse at free fall speed unless resistance has been knocked out for them ahead of time.


So from the time thatthe first kink appears in the roof, the first penthouse collapses into the building and the remaining exterior collapses is "free fall time?"


See, HowardRoark, reading comprehension is important. Re-read the underlined sections to catch your error.

You can see I even predicted your disinfo line by bolding the word "speed".

Doesn't matter how long it took for it to happen. It still collapsed at a speed that showed a total lack of resistance. Even a whole column collapsing beforehand wouldn't allow that, because there were several more.


And it's totally understandable that you don't wish to debate the other issue. I think it's safe to say that you are not one to take an objective position anyway, so I feel no obligation to discuss anything with you except for the sake of clarifying your more subtly ignorant remarks (ie, disinformation) for those who may not immediately pick up on them. The above is a good example.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speeds, starting with the inital kink in the penthouse which was the initiation of the collapse, it was longer than free fall. The penthouse collapsed, and 8 seconds later the entire building fell.

wtc.nist.gov...

This explains quite a bit whether you want o believe it or not. Look at page 26-on...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
There needs to be some education on speed here. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means.

There is a difference between time and speed.

We have the first kink and the penthouse fails....at freefall speed. Then there is 8 seconds of nothing.....no speed.

Then the building fails....at freefall speed. The fact that there was an 8 second gap between the incidences doesn't negate the other fact that the building fell at freefall speed.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It still collapsed at a speed that showed a total lack of resistance.


bsb,

You make the assertion that WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed with a degree of regularity but I do not recall that you have ever explained what that speed was or how you calculated it. If I have missed you posting this information then I apologise but could you run through it one more time or show me where it is.

Ta.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
There needs to be some education on speed here. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means.

There is a difference between time and speed.


Exactly. Both HowardRoark and Esdad seem to be having trouble with this concept.

You could argue that WTC7 began collapsing (degrading) immediately after its construction was completed. From that angle, it apparently took years to collapse, right?

The point is the vertical collapse speed, or VELOCITY, which was at free-fall, which means no resistance, which means something "took care" of anything that would have provided resistance before the building fell down.


Originally posted by timeless test
bsb,

You make the assertion that WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed with a degree of regularity but I do not recall that you have ever explained what that speed was or how you calculated it. If I have missed you posting this information then I apologise but could you run through it one more time or show me where it is.


Mathematics Professor Kenneth L. Kuttler at BYU has presented a paper outlining this here:

WTC7: A Short Computation

He uses the time the global vertical collapse took to calculate the speed at which that occurred (ie THE GLOBAL EVENT IN QUESTION, spanning less than 10 seconds).



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join