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

Thats definatly one thing they never looked at Pre 9/11, no Engineer ever thought about what Burning Jet fuel would do to the structure of a building, at least not a large aircraft.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Stop the derailing attempts and stick with the topic at hand.

Funny how they are the first to complain about people being off topic but are desperate to do it when they have no evidnece.

Originally posted by ziegenbagel
Thats definatly one thing they never looked at Pre 9/11, no Engineer ever thought about what Burning Jet fuel would do to the structure of a building, at least not a large aircraft.

Problem is a large quanity of the fuel was burned off in the intail explosion and what was left burned off quickly. So all you had left was an office fire.

Originally posted by MasterRegal
reply to post by Griff

 

Excellent.

Now let me show you something.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Notice, you could actually SEE the explosions and HEAR the explosions. Yet, on 9/11, we never heard any explosions or saw any explosions with the exception of the initial impact of the airplanes. This alone is proof the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were NOT controlled demolitions. I have absolutely no qualifications in this field, but I have seen enough controlled demolitions to know the WTC was not a controlled demolition. The only characteristic they share is a vertical collapse. That is it.

You do realize that is an old demolition. Contrary to what many believe it doesn't take miles of wire to set up demolitions. It can be done with remote controls now a days and it can be done internally to the inside core, as to not witness visuals effects.

Hey, I already posted this in another forum about the same topic, not sure why there are two threads, but anyway, let me know what you guys think...


Ok friends, im new to ATS, thank you thank you... Well first off I'd like to say this "Thermal Expansion" business is hilarious to me... the first thought in my mind was, im going to look up the definition of explosion on wikipedia and see what they have to say... here it is...
Wikipedia.com
"An explosion is a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave."

#1 High Temps=Thermal
#2 An explosion creates a shock wave=Expansion

Anyone want to refute this?

Now join me in copious amounts of laughter

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tezzajw
Stop the derailing attempts and stick with the topic at hand.

Funny how they are the first to complain about people being off topic but are desperate to do it when they have no evidnece.

When the NIST report has a disclaimer that they can not verify WTC7's construction, then it's safe to say that the rest of their claims are merely best guesses.

NIST have no evidence to prove their claims. Tossing away the steel before testing proves that it was a sloppy investigation and the results are a sham.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


LOLOLOLOL


nice try feds


remember when the owner admitted to bringing it down or whoever that guy was?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by dariousg

 

I do not work for NIST i did not write the report. I am only showing you what was brought up today.

I suggest you watch a complete video of the collapse incuding the several seconds prior to global collapse.(penthouse collapse)

You don't beleive it? Come up with your own hypothisis.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

these guys have plenty of evidence refuting today's bull#..
www.ae911truth.org...

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Griff

 

Griff!

One doctor? Absolutely fallible. A group of doctors forming, say.......a oncology team? No.

If NIST is wrong, there are a whole lot of people wrong. Massively so. Possible? Of course, I concede that. Likely? Negative.

The fallacy is that the work we are discussing came from one or two people. It came from a larger whole known as the NIST. Hence, my team of doctors analogy.

Well if you've ever looked into it - fluoride research was paid off, so why can't NIST/anyone else be... people are the weak link in any theory, money or threats can make them do things they normally wouldn't. Or they were so biased to the govts story that they had to make the data fit the predetermined outcome. 'they couldn't possibly have done that to the people' rubbish etc.

Well I hope reality comes and smacks all you govt supporting people in the face in a big way soon, because if you consider the evidence and coincidences at hand for the entire day of lies that happened, you can clearly see it was NOT some rag heads in planes that did the job.

It's utter tripe for the masses, idiotic drivel to make people feel that everything is just fine and the govt is not the nasty monster it is.

Originally posted by MasterRegal
The only characteristic they share is a vertical collapse. That is it.

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

I`m still lost at the fact that the BBC were reporting live from the Big Apple that the building had in fact collapsed. It was still standing (behind the TV reporter) as she gave the news report.
Who leaked the news report before the actual event had taken place?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Tossing away the steel before testing

That may have been the first evidence of foul play, imo.

Jets crash, and the wreckage is housed for months, sometimes years, while being investigated.
Track portions from train wrecks are kept and anylized the same.
Auto accident cars are kept in storage while the insurance company invetagates the damage.
On and on.

But two world-renowned spycrapers and a third tag-along building colloapse into NOTHING, killing 3,000+ people, and what happens? All materials are absconded and sent off, never to be touched nor seen again.

It fails me endlessly how anyone gets past just THAT point, yet alone to believe in a that building 7 is a "world first" scenario. And above that, that bldg 7 was on the OTHER side of other bldgs from 1 & 2, my logics says those buildings in between should not have come out, basically, sitting pretty.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by mental modulator

I am not an expert, but I am also not a complete fool.

Um... but you stated this:

I'm sorry,,, This looks nothing like the collapse... All the video documentation of that day show a steel building liquifying and falling very fluidly.

Do you think WTC7 was the Wicked Witch of the West?

So you assume I am a fool because I do not seem the correlation between the computer model video and real life? Thats my observation and my opinion...

Second

Seems like a fire witch and couple of wizards must have assisted with that fire.

Anyhow I have read plenty on the whole days events, I do not need any further proof.
I cannot convince you and you certainly cannot convince me...

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
NIST Video:
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7:
Why the Building Fell

www.nist.gov...

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?

Thanks TY for another great post. Stared and flagged.

And I thought the computer simulation and the real colapse looked similar enough.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by rgs55]

Thier saying diesel fuel may have melted and broght WTC7 down? I can tell you this, as kids, we used to light coffe cans of gas on fire sometimes, stupd prank kids stuff. Diesel dosnt aigninte or burn as hot as gas does, because of the oil in it. But, when the oil in diesel dos get going, hard to put out. It has to reach a certain temperature to burn.
If fuel was somehow responsable, the smoke would have been thick black , form ll those gallons...
The tnaks, ide imagine by law, have to be underground...a certain depth, prob like 40 feet at least... ever think what would happen if yuo set a gas station fuel pump on fire? In theory, tthe tnaks would explode, and yuove have seconds, before half a city block was on fire and leveled. Not tha easy to do, as fire would have to be sucked or find its way back down the lines, and if pressure is movin out, aka spraying gas form line, fire wont go down to tanks.
what im trying ot say is... if disel fuel had anyting to do with WTC 7, youde b able to smell the fuel for about a mile away, and youde see thick black clouds of smoke..THICK black clouds, like the clouds in Kuwait saddam had set on fire back in 1990. Yuo dont see that smoke in any of the WTC documentarys, somethin to ponder on..

Yea, Totally Believable... great job everyone...

they actually showed a classic demolition job crimp and all and still told a lie that made Pinocchio's nose a stub... how can they do this, better question is why...? what do they know we don't. why run the risk of being accessory to commit murder...? this is scary people... and on top of that -- about 2 weeks ago that book about bush faking that letter through the CIA. was released so, oh, my guys.... this is not good at all.

to get to the point.. i highly doubt if nay diesel fuel was buring thier, it was hot enough to weaken the steel beams or cause them to melt..that would defy the laws of physics then, expecially if they were well protected with fire retarding shielding* Coming for a time, when materials used to build places were of better quality than whats avialable today. I dont even think it would have been hot enough to disintigrate and burn/decay the concrete either.... i mean, seriously here..

Starred and flaged OP.The evidence is overwhelming.This case is CLOSED and the Truthers can move on to something else more constructive i hope.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Thier saying diesel fuel may have melted and broght WTC7 down?

They didn't say that. Actually they stated just the opposite. Read the report or heck read the Q&A's.