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: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by BigC2012
 


Actually I work for the NWO. Everyone on ATS knows that.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
He (TY) is doing his best to keep this thread from gaining momentum but NIST haven't provided answers they simply poked common sense in the eye. Throat Yoghurts attitude towards people who are demanding real questions be answered is nothing short of treachery.


----------------------

Post by ThroatYoghurt:

Actually I work for the NWO. Everyone on ATS knows that.

------------------------

Ha ha good one. Explains your reluctance to confront the truth.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by BigC2012]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Did you read the report? Did you listen to the briefing? Did you read the Q&A's?

Your answers are in there sir. Without holograms.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by BigC2012
 


All I am doing is trying to keep the thread on track. Slidding into another Silvertein thread is a waste of bandwidth.

I don't have all the answers. Nor did I claim to have them.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Then why mention Silverstein? You seem to have double standards issues.

Why avoid peoples questions by saying 'read the report' when the report doesnt answer the peoples questions? Hence the reason why people are here asking the questions and you are the only one that believes the report?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


so your are telling me the code has this many holes in it that a building could collapse due to fire? Like I said before, that would mean that any building that was built to these codes is in danger of falling due to fire. Is that a true statement or not? You see you can't have it both ways here. This report must be a real thorn in the side of the folks that blindly believe what they are told.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BigC2012
 


What questions have been brought up here? I asked for people to list errors on the report.

So far... not any.

I offered to e-mail NIST with a list of errors. All I have been getting is accusations and the same old spew.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


You, like most others here have not read the report. YOU are the one blindly following the sheep of the truth movement.

Here is what NIST stated about existing buildings that are similiar to the construction of WTC-7:


Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.

Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

The 12 recommendations reiterated from the WTC towers investigation address several areas, including specific improvements to building standards, codes and practices; changes to, or the establishment of, evacuation and emergency response procedures; and research and other appropriate actions needed to help prevent future building failures.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Keep It Clean

There is far too much personal commentary and off-topic sniping going on here.

For anyone who missed it, please read this:

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

Ignorance is no excuse. Stay on topic or stay out of this thread.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I have a question, "Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."
So how does NIST explain the molten metal ?
Could thermal expansion be the cause of molten metal if yes, can someone give me a rundown on how this works ?

[edit on 22-8-2008 by slylee]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Plenty people have listed errors and you ignored them. Why still hold the line that no-one is providing errors when it has been done over and over.

NIST never tested any steel.

NIST had no idea how the building was made.

NIST lied for 7 years by saying it was diesel.

NIST are an organistaion that doesnt use 'science' as they would provide evidence and calculations that can be verified.

NIST ignores ALL POSSIBLE HYPOTHESES such as explosives, even when they fit the collapse better.

How long are you, Throat Yoghurt, going to carrying on your act of ignoring these glaring difficulties with NIST and actually address the questions and errors brought up by tezzjw or griff? Yes keep running TY.

(editted for spelling. Oh my I cant spell)

[edit on 22-8-2008 by BigC2012]

[edit on 22-8-2008 by BigC2012]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by BigC2012
 


What questions have been brought up here? I asked for people to list errors on the report.

So far... not any.

I offered to e-mail NIST with a list of errors. All I have been getting is accusations and the same old spew.

You ignored every error that I listed on the previous page. It must really hurt you, when I find errors that you can not dispute.

You do know the difference between area and volume, right? NIST doesn't, it happily converts m^3 in ft^2. If you can't see that, ThroatYogurt, then you're really wasting everyone's time here. Either that, or trolling for more replies to increase your post count, seeing as you started this thread.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

Well why should we believe what the nist says, they are just people paid to come to a conclusion. Why do you believe what they say? Did they show you thousands of pieces of evidence, or just expert testimony and phoney simulated collapses on a computer program? No one knows. No ones gonna know. The government lies, that's our final conclusion for that day. Everything else is speculation. Believe the gov and be a sheep or don't and be anti-american. Pick your poison.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I'm an engineer, and I can assure you that no building collapses because of thermal expansion. Expansion on materials is considered when a building is to be constructed, most of all if steel is going to be used as main supports. Of course the temperatures used would be from the lowest it gets in winter to the highest it might get in summer with a percentil up and down, but the expansion couln't be more than a couple of centimeters per meter.

That was a controlled demolition from ground up... this thing is getting boring already...



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigC2012
Plenty people have listed errors and you ignored them. Why still hold the line that no-one is providing errors when it has been done over and over.

NIST never tested any steel.


The site was cleaned up prior to NIST taking over the investigation on August 21st 2002. This is NOT an error. I am quite certain NIST would have loved to have the steel.



NIST had no idea how the building was made.


The stated they didn't have the "as-builts". This again is not an "error" by NIST. No where do they state the had "no-idea" how WTC-7 was built.


NIST lied for 7 years by saying it was diesel.


No they didn't. IT was in question just like the Electrical Substation, the damage to the building... It was all preliminary and was still being investigated.


NIST are an organistaion that doesnt use 'science' as they would provide evidence and calculations that can be verified.


What? they don't use science? Do you know how many sicentists were involved?


NIST ignores ALL POSSIBLE HYPOTHESES such as explosives, even when they fit the collapse better.


Proves you did not read ANYTHING. This was addressed on ... Page 1? (not really) But there were several tests done regarding the blast hypothesis.


How long are you, Throat Yoghurt, going to carrying on your act of ignoring these glaring difficulties with NIST and actually address the questions and errors brought up by tezzjw or griff? Yes keep running TY.


When are you going to read the report?



[edit on 22-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I'm an engineer, and I can assure you that no building collapses because of thermal expansion.


Wow...you should have worked for NIST. Would have saved all us tax payers millions.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
dbbl post


[edit on 22-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I just read this and I'm completely dumbfounded! Folks, the cause is getting to 'them' because nobody serves up a crap sandwich like that unless 'they're' backed into a corner.

Something big is gonna go down real soon, I can feel it.

Peace



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Pootie
 


Couple of points:

For the love of God, please stop engaging in "gotchas". It's entirely possible that I have not communicated well enough to be understood. You'll notice that I have not engaged in a point by point rebuttal about the information contained in the report (or those opposed to it) for two reasons:


  1. I am not qualified to talk as a subject matter expert and generate unique opinions, separate from the opinions generated by actual, subject matter experts
  2. I haven't read all of the report yet


I find the proclamations of fact based on bullet-point contentions to be less than honest. I find a lot of semantic gymnastics going on as well. To skim through a report in 15 minutes flat and then dismiss the report outright is the height of egotism, in my opinion.

How arrogant do you have to be to simply say the report is nonsense without conducting detailed analysis yourself? Do you, the royal you, honestly believe that you’ve figured out something so obvious as to be laughable?

In my opinion, your (the royal you) position requires a couple of things to be plausible:


  1. You have a greater aptitude for understanding global collapses than the collective, three year effort of hundreds of experts, armed with nothing other an internet connection and skepticism
  2. The engineers & investigators are utterly incompetent. So incompetent, in fact, that without any real study of the methods or analyses used you’re finding lynch-pin, smoking gun evidence of fraud/incompetence in a report “they” released.
  3. If this is a giant conspiracy, why would “they” release any information that would lead to more questions? Wouldn’t “they” sanitize the report? Why would “they”, so skilled in creating and covering up a massive conspiracy, miss the opportunity to sanitize the report?
  4. The entire, three year effort is a sham, perpetrated by 100’s of frauds


How is it the 9-11 CT’er community already formed rock solid opinions, less than 24 hours after release? To truly understand how they got to the conclusions they reached, wouldn’t one need to spend a fairly substantial amount of time researching the methods, math, physics and conclusions?

How is “that doesn’t look right!” a viable, serious rebuttal? How about “it’s never happened before”? So what? Does that mean it can’t ever happen? Does that mean it didn’t happen?

In conclusion, as to your specific “gotcha” claim, concerning my statement that there was massive damage to WTC, caused by falling debris: Stop quote mining me. I didn’t claim anything other than the WTC was physically damaged by the other WTC building collapses. You took my quote out of context and attached meaning I clearly did not intend and have now demanded an answer.

So, don’t take my word for it:



Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

Source




Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Source



Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Source

A picture of the damage, on page 17

So, we have a couple of possibilities:



  1. The NYFD is “in on it” and everything attributed to them is part of the ‘psy-op’
  2. The NIST is “in on it”
  3. There was a lot of damage done to WTC7, from the other collapses. Just as I said.


Last point: 9-11 CT'ers live in inconstancies, voids. Of course, those inconsistencies are ‘smoking gun’ evidence of a cover-up/conspiracy. When those inconsistencies are acknowledged as the body of knowledge grows, the acknowledgment also serves as ‘smoking gun’ evidence of a cover-up/conspiracy, while at the same time you (the royal you) dismiss the newer conclusions.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


How many years have you been saying that? In ten years, will you still be talking about how 'somethings going to happen, I can feel it'?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join