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: 25
17
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Yes, and the FBI did investigate, that investigation was named PENTTBOM and its conclusions are well known.


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


Well you seem to be ignoring that by law NIST must also investigate.


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]




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, the FBI still refuses to release some information even through FOIA requests.

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.


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

NIST does not do criminal investigations.

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.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The WTC7 investigation was not a criminal investigation, if you want to know how and why WTC7 failed you ask NIST.


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]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Professional Engineer in Civil Engineering.

Structural engineer for over 5 years now.

Geotechnical (soils/foundations) engineer for over 7 years.

Have worked on MANY construction sites/buildings.

Enough for you? Or do you want my PE number?


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



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
EMERGENCY WARNING to anyone who works or lives in a large building

NIST says thermal expansion can bring down buildings...

www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob
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


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.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
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.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So Griff is that report smoke and mirriors for the general population?


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.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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.


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.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
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?


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:

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.

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]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
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.

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


Even if one floor connection did fail, why would the other floors attached to that column fail?

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


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?

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.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
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:

The unfireproofed Cardington structure survived temperatures twice those that NIST claims, reported Chris Sarns. NIST's fire model shows fires burning much longer than photos show, Sarns adds, and NIST assumes much while explaining little--not even how one failing column can pull down the neighboring ones.


and to reiterate what many of us alread know:

In contrast to natural, organic effects of fires cited by Gage (gradual deformations, and asymmetrical collapses following the path of least
resistance) the visible WTC collapse, Donly noted, proceeded at near freefall speed with no apparent resistance from the steel framework. Many columns must be cut simultaneously to drop a building straight down, he pointed out. FEMA report 403, Appendix C, recommended further study of evidence of liquid steel that could be related to the cause of the collapse, Donly comented, but NIST ignores this information.


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]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

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.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Seriously how many of us can actually really understand that NIST report anyways.


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.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

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.

No aircraft in WTC7.


(Not a one-liner).



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
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



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join