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.

 

August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
::BREAKING NEWS::

NIST claims that the cause of the collapse was uncontrolled fires resulting in thermal expansion causing floor failures. Failure between steel and concrete. Long span steel beams. Girder on floor 13 failed, causing floor to collapse. Cascading failures. Column 79 failed.

NIST encourages engineers and architects to consider thermal expansion when designing buildings.

Hypothetical blast simulations were looked into.

The slide show used at today's event can be found here:

event.on24.com...





[edit on 21-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
NIST Video:
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7:
Why the Building Fell

www.nist.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

www.nist.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Listen to it live now.

noliesradio.org...


View this link to see multiple examples of massive fires (3rd post from top)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NIST says there was no diesel fuel, which is opposite of what FEMA said.


The column was 15k pounds of fire protected steel and NIST says that it was weakened by the fire. Even the beams on each floor were fire protected.

From what I'm hearing apparently NIST left out a lot of important evidence.

NIST was supposed to be independent and unbiased yet why did they rule out the possibility of explosives or a controlled demolition.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by Techsnow]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


FEMA was a preliminary report.

Here is the report on the fuel:


Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building’s loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.

www.nist.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Thanks for the video links.

Why does their computer model of the collapse not resemble the actual collapse videos at all? There model shows the colums failing at one end and progressing across the building eventually pulling the sides inward as it starts global collapse.
Actual videos reveal that the center of the building starts to kink and then the entire structure falls vertically, there is no signs of the ends being pulled in by the failing floors and columns.

I also find it funny that they want us to believe a single column failure caused this collapse while at the same time saying the sound from explosives bringing down the building would be around 140 dB miles away. They say they looked into explosives, doesn't sound like they looked very hard. How loud with the charges for enough thermate cutters be that would be needed to sever that one column?
[edit on 21-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Will Larry "Pull It" Silverstein grace the cover of this 21st century new age fairy tail?

With the tenants of the building listed below...

Salomon Smith Barney
IRS Regional Council
U.S. Secret Service
C.I.A.
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
First State Management Group, Inc
Federal Home Loan Bank
NAIC Securities
Securities & Exchange Commission
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt

Will the report find that industrial sized, over loaded, paper shredders 'overheated' thus leading to "massive fires"?

It is well known that open flames melt/cut wtc steel... Right?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 





Failure between steel and concrete. Long span steel beams. Girder on floor 13 failed, causing floor to collapse. Cascading failures. Column 79 failed.


There was NO cascading failure my friend. Everyone who has watched the collapse KNOWS this for a fact. The damn building FELL STRAIGHT DOWN. No cascade, no unequal collapse between column such and such and floor such and such. It ALL GAVE WAY AT ONCE. Period.

I appreciate you trying to bring this forward but it also seems kind of funny that it would take 7 freaking years for them to come up with a reason for WTC 7s collapse.

It doesn't smell right and quite frankly I still have yet to find any valid information backing their claims on the towers. Why should we believe them on this building? Why didn't 'thermal expansion' cause many other steel structure skyscrapers to collapse after burning MUCH LONGER?

You see, they can say what they are paid to say but basic logic and a basic understanding of mechanics and physics says otherwise.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 



I do not work for NIST i did not write the report. I am only showing you what was brought up today.

I suggest you watch a complete video of the collapse incuding the several seconds prior to global collapse.(penthouse collapse)

You don't beleive it? Come up with your own hypothisis.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Thanks for the video links.

Why does their computer model of the collapse not resemble the actual collapse videos at all? There model shows the colums failing at one end and progressing across the building eventually pulling the sides inward as it starts global collapse.
Actual videos reveal that the center of the building starts to kink and then the entire structure falls vertically, there is no signs of the ends being pulled in by the failing floors and columns.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]


Why? Because it's the same BS that they provided for the tower collapses. [Snip] This was a pathetic attempt to try and explain this very questionable collapse. The sad thing is that the mainstream public will swallow it right along with yogurt. They won't look at it logically. There WAS NO CASCADE to the collapse at all in real life. The damn thing fell straight down. No support.





 

Mod Note: Personal comment removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 2) Behaviour and remember to go after the ball, not the player. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 21/8/08 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


refute what NIST presented today with evidence.

If not, all you have is an opinion. PERIOD.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Exactly, look how the model shows the ends of the building severely buckling/falling/pulling towards the center of the building. In real life, you can watch the entire building fall in a prefectly straight line. Their model does not fit with observed events.
There TY, I debunked with evidence. Their model is not what happened.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by dariousg
 



I do not work for NIST. I am only showing you what was brought up today.

You don't beleive it? Come up with your own hypothisis.



I know you don't work for NIST and I have come up with my own hypothesis on MANY threads. I do enjoy reading your posts WHEN you present information like this. But you are obviously supporting this finding and that's where I have to differ yet again from you.

The building crimped in the middle and came straigth down. Classic demolition style. Period. A fire collapse would have started in one place and then slowly worked itself throughout if it would have EVER caused a collapse in the first place.

I just hate that this report will be the final presentation by NIST and that it leaves so much to be answered just like their report on the towers. It seems to be the way things are done in this administration so I can't say I blame them.

Present partial facts and leave a bunch of holes in the report and then call it good. That way people keep arguing over it while the years keep slipping away. Before we know it 911 will have JFK status. Not that it doesn't already in the CT world but I'm speaking more towards the time line. It will soon be 40 plus years and nothing will be released until all responsible parties are dead. Just like the JFK scam.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I am still attempting to understand the prophetic news reporting of the BBC



Is this video a hoax or is that WTC7 right behind her head?

CNN prophetic reporting.

Why does everyone know that WTC7 was going to fall? Even the firefighters said it was going to fall in the 2nd video.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Techsnow]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
This report is a total JOKE.

Just one thing, if contractors discovered 22,000 gallons of fuel within months of the tower collapsing why has it took 7 YEARS to let us know this? This is important because NIST has maintained the buildings collapsed due to diesel tanks burning and melting the steel?

Oh, the computer sequence is as bad as their pancake collapse of the twin towers too, utter brainwashing twaddle.




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   


More fantastic work from the NIST. This is almost as good as the Purdue "simulation".

Am I right to say that they are now claiming a common office fire heated the structural steel to a point where it expanded enough to cause column 79 to fail leading to a global failure?

No more diesel fires?

No more "column damage" from the collapse of WTC 1 or 2?

Have they released a damage estimate to compare to the preliminary "orange blob" and the photographic analysis here?

www.studyof911.com...





NIST... When does Popular Mechanics come out with their BS?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Folks,

It is obviously your choice weather or not to believe their report. Can anyone point out with facts what they get wrong?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
How loud with the charges for enough thermate cutters be that would be needed to sever that one column?


Even if it was HE, not that much.

My guess, it would probably sound something like this:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff... I am looking forward to your opinion of this latest report.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Am I right to say that they are now claiming a common office fire heated the structural steel to a point where it expanded enough to cause column 79 to fail leading to a global failure?

No more diesel fires?

No more "column damage" from the collapse of WTC 1 or 2?


I would say yes.

Remember that the "cause" of the towers' global collapse was DAMAGE and FIRE.

Now, they're saying just FIRE collapsed WTC 7?

First time in history that an office fire has globally collapsed a skyscraper at near freefall nearly into itself.

Where O' where are our fellow engineers Pootie?

BTW, I thought you could call in? I can't watch the video right now, so did anyone call in to refute this?

And before I get the "why didn't you call in Griff?". All I have to say is that at Noon today I was 12 stories in the air inspecting a building and just got back to the office or I would have.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join