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: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Wonder who will get the contracts to perform these "Key Recommendations" from NIST??? After all many thousands of skyscrapers worldwide will require retrofits...if you believe that an office fire will completely collapse a steel framed building to the ground...

From Nist:

Key Recommendation
Building owners, operators and
designers should evaluate fire
performance of structural systems,
especially
● Long-span floor systems;
● Connections not designed for thermal
effects
● Asymmetric floor framing
● Composite floor systems
Possible Options for Developing Retrofits
If thermal effects concerns are
identified in a building:
● Strengthen connections
● Strengthen floor framing
● Increase structural redundancy
● Add additional fireproofing in vulnerable
areas




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Can anyone point out with facts what they get wrong?


As no one was in the building or even near the building can NIST point out with facts what they got right?

How about a piece of steel to test? Oops. ALL taken away and smelted with no regard to an investigation.

There's a lot of assumptions there. This girder gets hot, expands into this column, fails this floor and this column and then progressively collapses the rest of the building (unlike what was actually seen BTW). I'd like to know how they came up with such a scenario that contradicts what we have all seen on video?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Can anyone point out with facts what they get wrong?


This is the exact same report where they failed to analyze a single piece of steel from that building so they could rely on a bunch of computer simulations, right?

Who wants to bet the structural documentation and simulation parameters are locked up again?



Edit to add that NIST saying this is a huge no-brainer. It may have taken them 7 years to come up with a story, but who is really surprised? The flawed methodology hasn't even changed. This isn't really even news.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo,

What happens to specific models of airplanes if design flaws are found? What happens

They are all forced to make appropriate retrofits to ensure public safety.

Have you ever heard of a recall on a specific auto? (yes I know the difference between a car and a skyscraper)

Do you remember back about 10-15 years ago.. the Firestone tires... or something like that. The tires on Ford Explorers were bursting and causing crashes. There should have been a recall.

No, skyscrapers are NOT cars or tires...but building flaws and codes are updates constantly.



We live.

We learn.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
No offense to the OP, because this isn't his own personal info...

But this is a load of dog crap. Why do you trust NIST? That would be like trusting the official word of Scientists from Nazi Germany. Why didn't they do all of this to begin with? Why now, when everybody is asking questions out loud and in public? NIST is no more independent and unbiased than SETI or a Nazi Eugenics program. Don't believe this, please. It is not true. What kind of moron builds a complex with high security tenants on top of a bunch of highly explosive fuel tanks.... or whatever they are saying. To be honest, I refuse to read anything because I saw what I saw and a brief summary of their statements is enough bull# for me to sniff to understand it's a lie.

It's okay, dude. You're still the majority. I guess revel in the comfort while it lasts. You'll be asking why later, though.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Why do you trust NIST? That would be like trusting the official word of Scientists from Nazi Germany.


The problem is that 95% of the German population didn't realize what it really meant to be a "NAZI" until it was way too late.

No, I take that back. The real problem is that masses of people are incredibly stupid.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Griff... I am looking forward to your opinion of this latest report.


From what I've gathered so far (admittedly not much), I don't think you're gonna like it. But, I could be wrong in my first impressions. Hard to say as a preliminary look.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I expect a DETAILED analyisis from you my friend!! (so I can take it back to Ryan Mackey)



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I - for one - am extremely happy about NIST finall having to put something forward.

It clearly appears they simply delayed as long as they could and they are hardly even trying to supply a reasonable hypothesis anymore.

I truly hope this strategy backfires for them - because although many Americans have already really forgotten about 9/11 - the truth movement has only grown more powerful and professional with every day that has passed.

They know they are on the ropes and it is up to all of us truth seekers out there to throw the knock out punch!

I find it amazing that they all but admit they had lied about the Fuel Oil hypothesis and they contradict every single "theory" already put forward by the US. Govt. and promoted by their media lackeys on this issue.

We are closer to victory now than ever before - and I for one refuse to let this whitewash go down like the traitorous Warren report of an earlier generation.

It is through our combined strength and collaborative effort that this battle shall finally be won!

Let us now redouble our efforts and may the truth reign down from the heavens exposing the dark dees of evil men!






But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it!



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
but building flaws and codes are updates constantly.


This, I will agree with. As I recently had to shell out over $500 for the AISC combined ASD/LRFD manual, the ACI 318 '08 concrete manual and the recent ASCE 7 building loads manual.

They better not change them on me again.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
No offense to the OP, because this isn't his own personal info...


None taken


But this is a load of dog crap. Why do you trust NIST? That would be like trusting the official word of Scientists from Nazi Germany.


Do you know who was invovled in this processes? Please list the names and occupations of each one of them. (many civilians were involved FYI)


Why didn't they do all of this to begin with? Why now, when everybody is asking questions out loud and in public?


you know you have not even read the statements. So far all your questions are answered on their webpages.



NIST is no more independent and unbiased than SETI or a Nazi Eugenics program. Don't believe this, please. It is not true. What kind of moron builds a complex with high security tenants on top of a bunch of highly explosive fuel tanks.... or whatever they are saying.


Again, civilian professionals were responsible for many of the hours dedicated to this report.

do you know hospitals are built with highly explosive gases in them?

Medical air, Gas, Diesel....etc... what is your point????


To be honest, I refuse to read anything because I saw what I saw and a brief summary of their statements is enough bull# for me to sniff to understand it's a lie.


There you have it. A true truther. Ask Questions, Ignore Answers.

I have stated that this report will get the typical hand wave.


It's okay, dude. You're still the majority. I guess revel in the comfort while it lasts. You'll be asking why later, though.


thank God sane people are still in the majority.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Looking at the NIST slides, if column 79 failed from fires--and that is a big if, looking at the photo they posted of it on the 33rd fl.--that would have caused the SW portion of the building to slump.

But if you look at the plan on p. 11 of the NIST presentation, how did that failure propagate across the tightly spaced line of columns running north-south to the east of column 79--columns 76 though 78?

How did that one column act to bring down not only its immediate area but the the eastern structure as well, the entire building? Especially seeing as this was a wide span structure, and that the first 8 floors, as well as the NYC emergency bunker, were seriously re-enforced?

Fairy tale.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by gottago]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I expect a DETAILED analyisis from you my friend!! (so I can take it back to Ryan Mackey)


Well, I'd first have to see NIST's detailed analysis along with the original/as built structural documentation of the building. I highly doubt that will be forth comming, so you're just going to have to wait as long as I.


[edit on 8/21/2008 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Given what Griff just said is true (they did the same thing with the towers), how can you demand evidence to contradict this report when this report's own evidence is completely lacking in the first place?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Yes as these critical columns failed for the first time ever we witnessed a buildings structure completely fail across entire floors to down a building in under 10 seconds. Oh no, thats right, there were 2 buildings that did the same thing earlier that morning so this would be a third but that one had no plane impact and now no 'diesel infernos' to use as an excuse!!

Tip: Watch the video not the simulation and make up your own mind NIST is lying plain and clear.

Watch the building fall



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
After the other reports they put out on the 2 towers, I really don't believe anything they put out. I'm not in anyway surprised they came out with this conclusion.

Personally, I think it the entire investigation is about as valid as the UFO investigations where everything was supposed to be "swamp gas". Or the magic bullet theory. ETC.

In the end I think they know many people will just accept what they say and rather than some people actually looking into these things will just say - what about that NIST report thinking they can't be wrong.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
So far I have complied a rough list of those who were "in on it", from this single thread:



  1. Silverstien
  2. NIST in it’s entirety
  3. The NYFD
  4. Every news outlet that has ever looked at the evidence
  5. Every employee of said news outlets
  6. The NIST lead investigator
  7. The NISTs entire investigative team
  8. The NYPD
  9. Those actually filming the event
  10. You
  11. Me
  12. FEMA’s preliminary report
  13. Everyone involved in FEMA’s preliminary report
  14. Those coding, creating and modeling the collapse(s)
  15. Shadow government types who are going to be awarding contracts
  16. Solomon Smith Barney
  17. The IRS Regional Council
  18. The CIA
  19. American Express
  20. Standard Chartered Bank
  21. Provident Financial Management
  22. ITT Hartford Insurance Group
  23. First State Management Group, Inc
  24. Federal Home Loan Bank
  25. NAIC Securities
  26. Securities & Exchange Commission
  27. Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt
  28. The perpetrators of the “JFK scam”
  29. The entire team, from Perdue, that modeled the WTC collapses
  30. Germans
  31. Nazis
  32. The entire U.S. government
  33. Those that prepared the report
  34. Every engineer who worked on the report for NIST



Of course, the inflation isn’t complete yet. I will add more to the “they are in on it” list, as needed.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Even if it was HE, not that much.


According to their theory you would only have to blow one column in one spot, right?

There goes the "it would take too much time and effort to rig the building" argument right back out the window... that is if you believe the NIST.


So I guess anyone who believe this report must permanently cease using the argument that rigging the building would be difficult?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Pootie
 


Pootie...

Stop the hand waving and read the report. It will explain all of that to you.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Concerning the JFK assassination:

The constant drumbeat of 9-11 CT'ers comparing the JFK assassination to 9-11 is laughable.

9-11 CT'ers likening the assassination of JFK with 9-11 is like claiming JFK was never shot. All the eyewitnesses were part of a massive “psy op” and didn't actually see anything. The evidence that he was shot - the Zepruder (sp?) film, JFK's brain matter all over his wife, the gun shot wound to the governor, the bullet holes in his limo, to name but a few....were all faked.

And this is the topic of ‘serious’ conversation.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join