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

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
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]

I have 4,000+ posts on the topic under two usernames here and have written papers on the topic. I do not owe you a replay or anything for that matter. When I feel like giving you point by point rebuttal I will, as of now this thing is so incredibly laughable that is not worth my time. They have totally contrdicted the "prliminary report" they put out. They are claiming that loss of a SINGLE support column caused global failure... why even continue past that?

Anyone who believes that a building built to NYC building codes in the LATE 80s can collapse at all much less totally, completely and uniformly from the loss of a SINGLE COLUMN weakened by an office fire is out of their mind. hese buildings are designed to lose HALF of their support columns and even more without a total collapse. In this case 45 or more columns.

It is lunacy to believe the NIST's NEW story, which is wildly different than their old story has any merit on the most simple facts if you have any engineering experience at all. Even a kid who took H.S. physics should be able to laugh this report off.

Edit: to add disclaimer

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Dr Love]

WOW!! Look at the pics pawnaus put up! THis is exactly why, i do not like going over bridges. Ever since i was a kid, i kinda had a 'phobia' of them. 20 years ago, here in southwest CT, on I 95, a section of bridge collapsed, near exit 3. I live off 9. A guy i knew, one night, was driving down that way, just after it collapsed at about 3 am. He was driving towards ext 3, and noticed ahead of him, thier was a 'black area' like something was missing off the map, the black of hte road, was darker than the night sky, so he slowed n stopped, and discovered, he stopped his car 40 feet from going over the lost section! what a story, hugh?
But, to this article, guys, as kids often wede use aluminum coffee cans, and fill em with gas or diesel, we had heard if yuo put a golf ball in it, it will explode and take off into the air. We use the same can MANY times, 75% filled, and it never melted. It turned black yeah, but it never melted, and it was aluminum...not steel..
NIST is not convincing me

reply to post by ziggy1706


Ziggy...how long was the aluminum in contact with the flame?

Thank you,

-TY-

When these WTC Building 7 threads where down below the headlines, I was thinking, "Man these really need to be healine news" So thanks to everyone who posted and flagged in order to get these to the top.

Like I mentioned previously I watched the NIST Press Conference last night and there were paramount issues. The scientist/spokesman for NIST was eloquent in the way he delivered his theories, and persuasive especially when he uttered the words "The collapse of building 7 is no longer a mystery, it came down due to thermal expansion plain and simple."

The best question was the only unanswered question and that was by a reporter from InfoWars.com. He referenced the fact that NIST did no testing for Thermite on the beams, and also kept badgering the spokesman about the bare references to Thermal Expansion. (I.E. You could have replaced the words "thermal expansion" with explosion, controlled demolition, what have you, and his theories and sentences wouldn't have lost any meaning, thats how "bare" his references were to thermal expansion.

He was also asked how the building fell in less than 8 seconds due to thermal expansion, when the only way we (as in this civilized society) knew of to bring a building down that fast is controlled demolition. His only answer was to point to the chart a few more times and stammer the words "thermal expansion"

It is my opinion as an average American that they buried this Press Conference for a reason, thats why we didn't see it all over MSM last night, just on CSPAN and thats why Bill O'reiley, Lou Dobbs or anyone else won't cover it today.

This press conference was so poorly put together I found it entertaining, something like watching a horrible movie that you just can't turn off. I am going to post this in the other WTC 7 Thermal Expansion thread, Thank you for your time,

peace and love

Originally posted by BelowGovtThumbs


The best question was the only unanswered question and that was by a reporter from InfoWars.com. He referenced the fact that NIST did no testing for Thermite on the beams, and also kept badgering the spokesman

He was also asked how the building fell in less than 8 seconds due to thermal expansion,

It is my opinion as an average American that they buried this Press Conference for a reason, ...

I believe the majority of the United States population did not even know about WTC-7. That would explain the minimal "live" coverage on MSM.

MSN.com had it as one of their lead stories on their home page last night.

AOL has is on thier front page that includes an on-line poll.

NIST has is all over their website and is offering the video of it at 1pm today. Not burried anywhere. Just not THAT newsworthy to everyday people.

How could NIST have tested for Thermite? NIST arrived on the scene AFTER the site was cleaned up.

As far as collapse time.... how fast SHOULD the building have fallen with what was presented by NIST?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Source: www.nist.gov...

... Emergency responders provided evacuation assistance to occupants. No emergency responders were harmed in the collapse of WTC 7 because the decision to abandon all efforts to save WTC 7 was made nearly three hours before the building fell.

Thanks for this,

I was always befuddled by folks saying "Pull it" meant the Fire and Rescue crews inside 7.

So if NIST is to be believed in this matter - then "Pull it" ideed means demo.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I believe the majority of the United States population did not even know about WTC-7.

Agreed, amazing how the MSM has for the most part steered clear of that Pandora's Box.

Just not THAT newsworthy to everyday people.

Agreed again, nothing to see here....move along.


I find it amazing that certain people can live with themselves and feel no shame.

Peace

Originally posted by Griff

That alone is enough. A braced building's columns will all buckle to the same side unless severed. Period. End of story.

I thought that it wasn't a braced frame, but rather was a moment frame.

Doesn't this change your statement as it relates to 7?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Ok so the internet has it on a few popular sites. You've caught me.

However, as far as your theory on not testing the metal, thats is not my fault, If I were in charge of the investigation I would have collected samples 7years ago. This whole investigation only took 3 years. I believe NIST has a responsibility to obtain some of this metal used. Now in the NIST Press Conference the Scientist/Spokesman for NIST claims that controlled demolition WAS considered by NIST if that is the case, it sounds to me like it would be their DUTY to look into these claims and by the way, I still have broken bits of pottery from my elementary years, by NIST and the US govt doesn't have one scrap of metal from the only tower to ever collapse by thermal expansion in 8 seconds?

And last but not least, thermal expansion, like I stated is a vauge "new" phenom, so yes, I want answers to how thermal expansion causes a building to fall in 8 seconds, especially since NIST's Spokesman claimed there was no major structural damage that we could see on the outside, and since basically the only beam that failed was number 79, Also TY, he had a nice unverifiable reason why the building fell into a nice footprint, thereby verifying that indeed the building feel "neatly"

peace and love

Originally posted by Griff


Let's start at the begining.

Fires in the towers were hot enough to expand the floor trusses and make them sag with their connections being strong enough to pull the exterior facade inward.

But, in WTC 7, fires were hot enough to collapse the connections and cause the floors to fail. Which resulted in Euler's buckling of ONE critical column which then was able to miraculously pull the other structure down with it while it was unconnected to the floors?

Does anyone else see a problem here?

Yes, you're comparing the reactions of a truss, made of thin material, to a huge beam.

Of course, I would be willing to listen if you have some info that says a beam will sag like the trusses did, rather than expand due to heating.

reply to post by Dr Love


I understand your point and respectfully ask the following:

How is the same entity, which appears to be (to you) so thoroughly competent as to perpetrate the largest, most heinous cover-up in recorded history, resulting in the mass murder of over 3,000 of it's own citizens, unable to sanitize a report for inconsistencies?

You consider the inconsistencies as proof of a conspiracy (okay maybe not you personally, this is not a personal attack) but yet, aren't those very same inconsistencies proof of incompetence? Meaning, wouldn't same "mistakes" you think they are making now, be evident in the actual conspiracy?

This is a logical fallacy which relies on the "hyper-competent government" and the "hyper-incompetent government". One the one hand the royal you wants us to believe "they" pulled one over on us so thoroughly only you and a few others are astute enough to notice. On the other hand, you want us to believe this same government ("them") was too stupid to catch mistakes/inconsistencies in a report they had no deadline for.

And this makes sense?

Aren’t the inconsistencies born from a place of honesty? Meaning, if they were trying to cover something up, wouldn’t it be much easier to just fabricate arguments against 9-11 CT’ers thereby denying them ammunition to continue to ask questions?

I emailed some senators with..the fed report saying "not brought down with explosives"

and the video that shows it was...lol

this government is a train wreck...

I've looked at the "evidence" of a conspiracy with the WTC attacks, and quite honestly all I can put it down to is that some people just can't cope with the enormity of what happened.

The moon landings fall into the same category, some people just can't comprehend that we actually did achieve a successful landing all the way back in the 1960s, so even when we return to the moon and see Neil Armstrong's footprints in the moon's surface, they will be claiming that "they don't look right" and were obviously fabricated.

The WTC attacks are just the same, some people have now developed such a level of near hysteria on the subject that no amount of engineering evidence will convince them otherwise.

Ultimately this will just go down in the psyche of some as another JFK/Roswell/Moon Landing conspiracy. In the same way that WTC conspiracy theorists poor scorn on the intelligence of others for not "seeing the truth", I tend to think that the intelligence of the conspiracy theorists is in question because of their inability to process information in a logical way.

Ultimately it really doesn't make any difference, the buildings are gone and the people are dead, in the end, that's all that really matters.

The problem with all this....


leaving out half the equation, equals a story of lies!!!

Why do people believe this crud seriously does anyone know what deductive reasoning is or do they just accept anything the government says is correct and accurate?

There isn't any facts in this new report, just like the Omission Comission left out the WTC 7 collapse completely!!!

Smoke and mirrors!!!!

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by Griff

I'm talking about a column being able to pull it's neighboring columns down when it's not connected to them anymore. And if it is connected to them, they would all fail in the same direction and not straight down. Including the facade.

Griff, if the column buckled somewhere around fifth floor, that in effect shortens that column stack in relation to others adjacent - right?

So rather than "pulling down" it would really in effect be a transfer of load to other adjacent columns - right?

If horizontal connection did disconnect then next column over would be weaked also allowing deflection towards failed column under increased loading?

If thermal expansion is at play could one assume that with a disconnection in horizonal plane that the adjacent column stack could deflect slightly out of plumb towards the failure, as intact beams "pushed" from the other side causing it to fail under load also?

It seems plausible due to stored energy from thermal expansion. What I'm trying to visualize in my minds eye is stored energy/stress evenly distibuted so long as everything is more or less intact in all planes. Much like a spring. Once storage becomes uneven from whatever influence or event then the the energy seeks release at weakest point - I am trying to vizulize the stucture as a whole rather than isolated tidbits.


Thanks,

Phoenix

Originally posted by Dr Love


I've been noticing a certain psychological ploy ... "moon landing hoax" and "Roswell" ..... It's a sure sign of desperation, bet on it!

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Dr Love]

Thanks for pointing this out Dr.Love. So true - this has entered the MSM arena as well. Not to derail, but in some of the latest Anthrax reporting the Fourth Estate has also employed JFK, 911,moon landing hysterics to sell really questionable government 'findings'.

Uhm, don't know about you guys but I have known that for about 2 years now. We spent a whole week on that in one of my structural engineer classes at varsity, doing the math and all the fun things can come with it