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: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
::BREAKING NEWS::

NIST claims that the cause of the collapse was uncontrolled fires resulting in thermal expansion causing floor failures. Failure between steel and concrete. Long span steel beams. Girder on floor 13 failed, causing floor to collapse. Cascading failures. Column 79 failed.

NIST encourages engineers and architects to consider thermal expansion when designing buildings.


So? then let's consider thermal expansion.

We have Steel and we have Concrete.

What does wikipedia say?:
en.wikipedia.org...

coefficient of linear thermal expansion α [in 10-6/K at 20 °C]
Concrete 12
Steel, depends on composition 11.0 ~ 13.0

in other words concrete and steel thermal expand equal !

Now tell me how does this fit with NIST's picture of the breaking bolts due thremal stress meaning expansion difference betwenn concrete and steel if they have the same expansion coefficient?

I don't see how what NIST suggested should work.

So where is the physical model (a concrete plate with a steel beam build the same way) that shows that it is like NIST claims?




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Jesus himself could come to you guys, say it was his will that the tower fell and you...hmmm...people would say he was just parroting the NWO/Bush/Bilderburg line.





posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Does anyone else see a problem here?


Not yet Griff... please point it out. Seriously, we are talking about two different buildings designed differently. Two different reasons for collapse. Fires burned much longer..... etc...

Thanks brutha!

-TY-



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
NIST "LATE-BREAKING" BUILDING 7 ***UPDATE***


They never like showing too much floor to floor action, do they?



(photoshop upgrade to

event.on24.com...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210b


I don't see how what NIST suggested should work.

So where is the physical model (a concrete plate with a steel beam build the same way) that shows that it is like NIST claims?




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.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
fantastic post, TY. Starred and flagged.

I'll enjoy watching the CTers scramble to find flaws in this one all evening



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   


I've just picked myself up off the floor long enough to type this.


Lots of pages of stuff to read, but I guess I'll cut to the chase.

WHAT RUBBISH!

There are numerous examples of office fires burning harder and longer than this, with NO COLLAPSE.

If this really is their explanation for the collapse, then I'm never walking into another high rise building in my entire life!


This has to be BS in the extreme (more so than the WTC 1/2 collapse).

What's the deal with federal fire regulation now then? This is bad news. It means a couple of small office fires in the Sears Tower could cause it collapse, or the Empire State Building, or any one of several thousand high rise buildings around the globe.

Given that some buildings are nothing more than bits of steel and glass, they're in trouble!

What about car parks with steel frames and concrete floors?? God help a car fire in there!



Anyone see the absurdity in any of the NIST findings?

Car parks are steel/concrete construction PRECISELY because they're safe in a fire. Nothing to burn, and people can get out.

The consequences of these findings are absolutely terrifying, yet I doubt the MSM are going to report on this one tiny little bit.

ALL HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DANGEROUS?

NIST FINDS OFFICE FIRE COULD COLLAPSE SKYSCRAPERS

TOWERS OF DEATH: FIRES COULD COLLAPSE HIGH RISES

WORLD-WIDE HIGHRISE SCARE: FIRES COULD CAUSE COLLAPSE



I'm laughing, but the joke is on you.

Either the NIST report is utter BS and nothing will happen, or they really have discovered after all this time that fires in high-rise buildings are very dangerous indeed, and that something needs doing to make them safer, i.e. by introducing better fire suppression systems, etc..

As they say, actions speak louder than words, so I'll wait for the MSM to grab this, and for the federal fire codes to be updated, and made so that the fire suppression systems in all high rise buildings have to be replaced/improved.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



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

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit


WHAT RUBBISH!



Please show where they are in error, I am making a list and will be sending it to NIST within 10 days for consideration.

So far... I have...


_________________



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
if that were the case this would have been old news, nah this is just more smoke being blown up your...



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Waitingsolong
 




Who leaked the news report before the actual event had taken place?





It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement

Source
I listened to the live leak audio, whats going on when the guy from info wars asks his question ? Does the mic get muted and does'nt get a fair reply ?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


I have yet to read the entire report. So far it is very interesting and a much easier read than the WTC1&2 report. I did listen to the presentation and read the Q&A sections, watched all 3 videos.

I would like more constructive criticisms ... like what Griff offers. All we seem to get is... "garbage", "liars", "bullsh*t", .....and very few have read it.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Gee, I feel all happy inside now that I finally know the "truth". Now I just have to work on forgetting all the other evidence like ol' Larry talking about having to "pull" the building, not to mention all the other explosions in the twin towers, etc, etc.

This report is like putting makup on a pig. The ugly facts are still there - they just keep trying to dress them up with a little blush and eye liner!



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

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.


you mean 'explanations' given like:

"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail."

That explains absolut nothing physical.
And a computer model is usless if it is not done physical correct and with the correct input parameters.

The request for a real physical model is valid in this case.
No one says it has to be a 47 store building and burn down.

Again concrete and steel have the same thermal expansion coefficient!

So there is no physical base for their claim.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurtI have yet to read the entire report. So far it is very interesting and a much easier read than the WTC1&2 report. I did listen to the presentation and read the Q&A sections, watched all 3 videos.

I would like more constructive criticisms ... like what Griff offers. All we seem to get is... "garbage", "liars", "bullsh*t", .....and very few have read it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here as you're simply posting new information, and aren't NIST.

You're not on my "Foe" list lightly, and I didn't "Ignore" you either as you post stuff worthy of consideration.

I'll need a few days to fully read everything, but I still stand by my original post, above.


The implications of this report are nothing short of huge.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
When you have read it can u tell me if this statement is true please.

Response to a question from the LiveLeak Audio: 47:17
"I will reassert what i have said all along, that the findings we have got, we are very comfortable with, it's based on sound science, it's consistent with all the observation's, it's simple, straight forward, it's elegant, technical, it's understandable by people."

Straight forward but then technical? was it elegant, understandable by people?
Please let me no if he was right.
cheers
Lee

[edit on 21-8-2008 by slylee]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by slylee]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Pancakes are so passé.

But a Penthouse Chop - now that's another storey, and another, and another...




(weak photoshop disclaimer - NIST link/previous post)



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I was hoping we could discuss thermal expansion instead of beating the topic of building 7 to death... Lets discuss THERMAL EXPANSION, who has any feedback on this...

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?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Not yet Griff... please point it out. Seriously, we are talking about two different buildings designed differently. Two different reasons for collapse. Fires burned much longer..... etc...


I'm talking about a column being able to pull it's neighboring columns down when it's not connected to them anymore. And if it is connected to them, they would all fail in the same direction and not straight down. Including the facade.

Although, I admit, without the construction documents, I could be wrong. I sure wish they would release them and make a believer out of me.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Stop the BS with building a replica and burning it down.


Why is that BS? Because you want it to be? Do you know that practically everything we know about anything has been recreated in a lab? And if it can't be recreatd in a lab, then it gets tossed out?

Look up the Hutchenson effect if you want an example. Since the man can't consistantly reproduce the claim, he is considered a quack. What's so different about NIST?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Pootie
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?


Exactly my point. But, you stated it better than I did.

So, is it one column or does the entire building need wired? They can't have it both ways.


Oh man! That blows NISTs findings clean out the water.

Demo companies wouldn't rig the whole building if all it took was one column.

It also means all our understanding of structural engineering is completely flawed and we ALL need to go back and re-learn it all.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join