It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:37 PM
Any information about the statis of the "FIRE PANELS" on WT7 or any other WT building for that matter? at these meetings ? or reports?

Just have not seen very much about the fire protection systems etc. y'a figure this kinda' info. be like 2nd after the structural elements?

As always your Canadian friend,

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by svenglezz

Hi Sven... this is the only information I have:

Finding 2.25 The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. [The alarm had been set to “test” mode due to maintenance work] (pg28)

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
There were exactly 21 public meetings since NIST took over in 2002. How many did you attend?

How many open forum discussions (not media forums) did NIST attend when requested?

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:51 PM
You got to be F***'n kidding me.....right?

Thats the only information out there (even with 22 public meetings)???

NOT ONE PICTURE OF A FIRE PANEL or info. that's just not right.

Your in shock Canadian friend,

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by ULTIMA1

NIST is supposed to go to open forum debates during an investigation?

For what???

The held 21 meetings to answer questions. Again, how many did you attend?

They have also supplied you with an e-mail address to send questions to them about this report until September 15th.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:53 PM
Lets me start posting some things that NIST refused to do. See what kind of "professional" company NIST really is.

October 6, 2005: NIST Refuses to Show Computer Visualizations of WTC Collapses The British publication New Civil Engineer reports that, despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, WTC collapse investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are refusing to show computer visualizations of the Twin Towers’ collapses. Despite having shown detailed computer generated visualizations of the plane impacts and the development of fires in the WTC at a recent conference, it showed no visualizations of the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers. Colin Bailey, a professor of structural engineering at the University of Manchester, complains, “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost.” A leading US structural engineer says that NIST’s “global structural model” is less sophisticated than its plane impact and fire models: “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.” [New Civil Engineer, 10/6/2005]
Entity Tags: World Trade Center, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Colin Bailey
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
NIST is supposed to go to open forum debates during an investigation?

What investigation? Even you have stated they were not on the beginning of the buidling 7 investigation.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by svenglezz

It's what I found in like 45 seconds. Try looking around.

Not all fire alarm panels are addressable to the Local FDNY. Many just state that there is an activation. The location of the fire is determined with the FDNY arrives at the scene. (this may or may not be the case with WTC-7)

Others may show a "water flow" detection. (fire pump activation)

Sorry I wasn't able to help you out too much.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:59 PM
It's a rapidly moving thread. I'd like to just remind everyone to Keep It Civil. Discusion and disagreement are fine. Attacking, name calling and insulting our fellow members is not.

Thank You.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by yeahright
It's a rapidly moving thread. I'd like to just remind everyone to Keep It Civil. Discusion and disagreement are fine. Attacking, name calling and insulting our fellow members is not.

Thank You.

you made a huge assumption as to what i meant. didn't you? no worries, i clarified and agreed with YOU.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:18 PM
This is getting very interesting...

I would propose people on here (Griff etc.) that are little smarter then me to look into this. If this is the only information available...stuff is missing.

Some things to find out etc. (this is just off my shocked head..i'm sure more can be added to this:

1. Manufacture of the Fire Alarm System / Panel Controls?
2. Monitor Company for Each Building?
3. The sprinkler contractor that installed the systems for each building?
4. The Fire Protection Contractor for Servicing and Testing etc.?
5. Why the system was in a TEST mode? What is that? never hear of test mode, during maintenance work? only that specific ZONE would be off.
6. How in the hell did a fire get out of control in WT7 with like all of N.Y. Fire Dept. on site at 10:00 in the morning. (not to mention fires all over the building at the same time).
7. Signals sent to Monitoring Co.'s for WT 1 & 2 any sent?
8. Finding out the people (fire fighters) standing infront of the FIRE PANELS for each building and what they saw? and why not noted with at least a picture or video.
9. Finding the most experience sprinkler contractor in the U.S.A. and get his/her view on this matter (seems' only the best will do here
10. ...(will add more soon and/or feel free to add on).

K' thats just off the top of my head for now....need couple day's to have this sink in....
Your Canadian friend,

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:19 PM

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:25 PM
Yes...I fully understand how the fire protection system functions.

That's why I am asking for more information...this is not right

Your Canadian friend Sven.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:47 PM
Friends, I really do not understand why this thread goes on and on. There is nothing that can come out of it and I will try to prove it:

Let's assume NIST has a team of fairly good and subjective scientists. It is well established in this thread's previous posts that these scientists did not take into account:

  • The precise actual construction of the building at the time of the attack
  • The steel samples
  • Many other important details

I am not saying they were malicious and didn't do so, nor I investigate why these data are not availiable - it really doesn't matter for my conclusion which is that this thread has no merit at all.

These scientists were forced to make a conclusion of what caused the building to collapse. Also, they were not allowed to make every and any assumption in doing so. Please, if you are reasonable, don't tell me that they could assume that their government had planted explosives before-hand etc. They just plainly couldn't assume these things and remain in place.

So what is the outcome? A huge report, that is based on assumptions and is the honest effort of a group of scientists working with missing data and restrictions.

I don't care if you believe that Osama did it, or the NSA did it. I, myself, just don't know. What I know is that report does not bring anything on the table (alone) for either sides of the argument. Proving or disproving an assumption is a fruitless effort by definition. You cannot prove an assumption, only a fact.

So please stop this craze! It is obvious to a neutral observer that this report brings nothing nothing new to debate about.


[edit on 22-8-2008 by ppolitop]

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

Debunking NIST's Conclusions About WTC-7

NIST can't have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.

And why didn't NIST address what these experts say?:

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

"Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds... ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded.
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

No one is buying NIST lieing report!
Most people on your thread dont believe the report.
Look all over the internet most people are not buying in to this!
NIST has out right told a lie:
NIST also said:

"No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses."

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by TheTilde

Originally posted by TheTilde

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Read the report, watch the computer model and the explanations that come with it.

Stop the BS with building a replica and burning it down.


The computer model doesn't look like what happened at all!

First there is the left side falling inside. I can't see it in the live footages.

Second, the video is very short, but it looks to me that the tower start a spin in the last seconds! Anyone can confirm?
I am very curious to look at the whole simulation. But I don't hold my breath for that release

EDIT: I just saw mirageofdeceit's post asking the same thing (and in a better way) a few posts above mine.

I was going to say the same thing - the building starts to fall sideways right as the video stops, yet we know the building didn't budge an inch sideways (any direction) from the few pieces of film we have of the actual collapse; you could draw a straight line with the corner of the building!!!

If it started twisting, it would be evidenced by the top corner of the building moving sideways across the screen. It does not. It only seems to lose the vertical motion in the very last second or two, but the NIST video doesn't get close to getting that far.

Where do I write to put in a FOIA request???

[edit on 22-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:35 PM
Well it's out at last, it's huge, it considers the alternative scenarios and not everyone is satisfied.

I'm not going to pretend I'm surprised

The realistic analysis of explosive possibilities and the findings fit in with what experienced demolishers and those familiar with explosives have been trying to say all along - it just doesn't fit for a lot of significant reasons. The same for thermite which is estimated at a minimum of 100 lbs per column cut with the added complication of applying it horizontally.

They've come up with a possibility that actually is a reasonable fit to the observed event and events leading up to the collapse. Doesn't mean it's 100% right - just fairly 'close' perhaps, moreso than a lot of alternative suggestions.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:39 PM
It's mind-blogging how utterly dumb some people are... It's like talking to a brick wall. They couldn't see the truth even if they were swimming on it.

No explosions right?

Here's some physics lessons and examples.

Some people would believe the official story even if they showed them a computer model with a building falling upwards... by the way, that NSIT computer model is in fast forward...heavy steel structures don't behave that way anywhere in this world...

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by Vehemens

There were explosive sounds but not on a scale that fits the estimated 9lb minimum of RDX or equivalent shaped charge required to fail a single column that had been pre-cut to weaken it in advance, much more to do the same damage to an unprepared column. Also missing is the exterior window damage that would accompany such an explosion and the accompanying very very loud sound and flying debris. And that's just for 1 single cut column.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by tezzajw
You do know the difference between area and volume, right? NIST doesn't, it happily converts m^3 in ft^2.

tezzajw... i ignore you almost as much as you ignore evidence. It is very difficult to discuss things with you.
That being said
32 Kilograms per cubic meter were converted from the International Systems of Units (Metric System) to Customary Units. (what we use here in the States) and yes that does equal 6.4 pounds per square feet.

In fact these measurements represent density:


Density is a measure of the mass of an object per unit volume; thus, it has units of mass divided by length cubed such as kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) or pounds per cubic foot (lbs/ft).

I don't understand your problem with this.

It is this post by ThroatYogurt that shows an extreme lack of understanding on a fundamental level. Possibly a failure to grasp 7th grade Mathematics, however, I won't speculate. Also, more mind-numbingly obscure is that ThroatYogurts post was starred three times? Three other people think that he is correct??? Wow...

Page 49 of the NIST report estimates fuel loads of 32 kg/m^3. This is a volume measurement. Converting metric to imperial units, the NIST report states that this fuel load is 6.4 lb/ft^2. This is an area unit.

I pointed out to ThroatYogurt that NIST made an error with their units, as they converted a volume unit, into an area unit, which is dimensionally impossible. ThroatYogurt replied with the above quote and tried to justify that it was correct!!!

Now, ThroatYogurt, may I direct you to read page 86 of the report. It clearly shows the estimated fuel loads and ALL estimates are given as area units. The erroneous 32 kg/m^3 has been correctly typed to be 32 kg/m^2 - an area unit. The floor of a building is measured by area, either m^2 or ft^2. NIST tried to estimate the amount of combustible material spread across the floors. They did not try to estimate the density of the combustible material.

ThroatYogurt, you asked for mistakes in the NIST report. I clearly showed that their editing is piss poor, as they included a unit error on page 49. You argued that this was correct and that it is a result of converting from metric to imperial. Your argument is not even consistent with your excerpt, as you claim that lb/ft^2 is correct for density, while the excerpt claims that it should be lb/ft.

ThroatYogurt, your absolutely ignorant display of mathematics has been noted.

Enough said, really.

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in