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

No, the FBI still refuses to release some information even through FOIA requests.



This is the last time i will state this. The FBI is the main investigatiing agency, not NIST.

NIST does not do criminal investigations.





[edit on 27-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

This is getting ridiculous, of course the FBI is going to withhold some information, for example names are almost always redacted in reports because this is secret information which could compromise people or investigations. In no way does this mean that the FBIs investigation is inconclusive or that somehow they must disagree.


In that case I will make this the last time I will repeat myself. The WTC7 investigation was not a criminal investigation, if you want to know how and why WTC7 failed you ask NIST. NIST are the official agency for buildings and fire research on structures which have failed and caused loss of life. The law I pasted before shows it clearly. Your attempt to rationalise that we can somehow ignore their report because they don't conduct criminal investigations is absolutely ludicrous.

I think everyone reading this thread can clearly see that you are not putting forward any genuine point here and are just repeating yourself over and over. NIST has exactly the same requirement to investigate as the FBI does and they have done so. You cannot simply claim "oh their report is irrelevant" and expect anyone to agree with you.

Unless you're actually going to address my points, rather than simply repeating yourself, I won't be returning to this exchange.

Gee, how many times can 1 person be so wrong about so many things.

The WTC compound was a crime scene, that includes building 7.



[edit on 27-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

just a question to see if your familier with the Report on the Cardington Tests and their analisis with how unprotected steel performs in office fires

EMERGENCY WARNING to anyone who works or lives in a large building

NIST says thermal expansion can bring down buildings...

www.youtube.com...

YouTube Link

Two questions in return. Was WTC 7 unprotected? Did the Cardington tests show any building collapse? I said building collapse, not local buckling of beam webs and flanges.

I guess you're trying to start a line of questioning here, but I thought I'd pop on and answer these questions while I have a minute. WTC7 was not unprotected, and in fact Cardington was partially protected, only beams were without fireproofing, and no it did not collapse. It was after all a 7 story structure in a regular pattern. WTC7 is not an easy comparison to make for structural behavior as its design was unique.

I just wanted to say thanks to people like Griff who actually know about this type of stuff because they have been trained, it's there job.

When people like Griff question WTC7 collapse everybody should sit up and take notice. Seriously how many of us can actually really understand that NIST report anyways.

So Griff is that report smoke and mirriors for the general population?

reply to post by exponent

---

Since the floors are what NIST is claiming failed, causing the single column to fail, this experiment has gives us a real world precedent for what we should have seen at the WTC 7. What do you believe it was that is so unique about WTC 7's construction that made is more susceptible to breaking from thermal expansion and why the entire structure was relying on a single column to hold it up?

Without empirical tests to back up what they say, I'd have to say yes. I'd like to see one real life laboratory experiment to justify them saying the connections to the columns failed before I can believe their theory.

The patern has no bearing (no pun intended). What does matter is that the Cardington tests concluded that the connections do not fail before the beams buckle.

NIST needs to back this theory up with real life precedence. I'm not talking about failing an entire building. I'm talking about showing us that connections fail before the beam will buckle in thermal expansion.

The structure did not rely on a single column to hold it up, simply progressive failure initiated at that column had not been sufficiently studied. WTC7s design was unique in many ways, the asymmetrical floor framing and long span beams result in uneven forces and larger amounts of deflection.

edit:

This is a bit of a hasty conclusion to make, considering the difference in the two buildings, it's not entirely invalid though, experimental verification of a single K8 failure would be useful.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by exponent]

You did not address what would have made the connections break from thermal expansion. The expirement that was being discussed showed that no such failure occurs in real life. Even if one floor connection did fail, why would the other floors attached to that column fail? Assuming all of that happened, when the single column fails, in real life the load it was supporting is transfered to the other columns. So why could the rest of the columns not hold up their load plus the load that the single failed column was holding? This would imply that the columns in WTC 7 had 0 factor of safety, would it not?

It does? You better tell NIST! (Seriously, it doesn't, it shows what happened in the Cardington test rather than WTC7)


They wouldn't inherently, more than one connection had failed by the time WTC7 began collapsing.


No, the columns had appropriate factors of safety, but WTC7 was not designed in a regular grid pattern, the floor framing was asymmetric and the initial failure column was particularly isolated. I don't know why you're asking me to explain this, the NIST report (specifically NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 and NCSTAR 1-9A) explain this in much more detail than i could.

AE911truth.org has posted an article on the new WTC 7 report. They even mention the very Cardington test we were talking about.
Article is here

Particularly interesting:


and to reiterate what many of us alread know:


I'm only half way through the press conference that is linked to on the top of that article and have already come accross another notable fact.
NIST says there was only enough combustibles in any given part of the building to support fire for less than 30 minutes. Columns are supposedly fire resisant for 3 hours and beams for 2 hours.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by Skipper1975

---

Excellent video! Starred!

When will people wake up to the fact that more than terrorists with box cutters were involved?

Who says that?

There were also planes and fire involved.

You also have to look at a NIST report that even state that NIST failed to recover any steel for testing from WTC 7.

NIST is also not the one of the main investigators for 9/11, the FBI and NTSB are the main investigators since it was a crime scene.

No aircraft in WTC7.

(Not a one-liner).

Not trying to change the subject....
but the little black box will give so much information...you know...
the FIRE PANELS! info???? for WT7, WT1 and WT2 for that matter anyone?


Your Canadian friend,
Sven