posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 12:26 AM
The only federal report into 9/11 in general was the 9/11 Commission Report. The only two federal reports into the collapses at the WTC were the FEMA
2002 report and the NIST report.
FEMA's was preliminary, and they gave a vague theory and using contradictory explanatory diagrams. For example, one of their diagrams suggested
that the trusses deflected the outer columns by expanding, while another suggesting the same by sagging and pulling them inwards in the opposite
direction. These diagrams were sequential and the obvious contradiction was treated as if it didn't exist, not surprisingly. They also made
suggestions of a pancake-type collapse of the floors, which NIST contradicted.
NIST's report was put out in an attempt to make more sense than FEMA, basically. None of their experimental data supported their major hypothesis,
and in fact they didn't even test
their main hypothesis, that the floors could sag and therefore deflect perimeter columns enough to start a
Originally posted by jprophet420
Another question would be who quotes what report how often.
A lot of people quote official reports simply for references to specific information (ie, how many perimeter columns were knocked out during the
impacts, or information on the structures themselves, etc.), or just to show problems with the reports themselves, but otherwise there's nothing
of value in them frankly, or at least nothing much worse discussing. The NIST report is some 10,000 pages + or some ridiculous number like that,
and most of it is just irrelevant and dumbed-down minutia. Padding, I guess, to make it look more authoritative but to make it harder to get to the
meat of what they're really saying.