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.

 

Engineers what is your take on NIST report on WTC7?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

So no chance that agents of Aegis were
playing ball to get the verdict needed
by Silverstein ? That would have allowed favors
and money to flow right back to Aegis through
different channels.Both parties are happy.
Certainty not too hard a plan to come up w
for these agencies.
Because WTC was demolished. ZERO if ands
or buts' about it.
NIST's WTC 7 report was late and NOT peer reviewed.




posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

What does you innuendo have to do with the validity of the engineering data provided.

Did the courts not force the release of the flight 77 data from freedom of information requests.

Did the government have to admit to the boched WTC EPA dust samples and pay out millions.

Please provide actual evidence regarding the engineering information at the court case.
edit on 19-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fix this and that



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Please provide evidence of demolitions setting off and demolitions shrapnel.

Or do you believe in the fizzle no flash bombs?



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux
The evidence of demolition is proved by
NIST's own admission of free fall occurring for at least
100 feet. Impossible without demo.

The Aegis experts of which I read every account, simply
regurgitate the same info without showing any evidence
of the mechanism that made a 47 story bunker fall like a
house of cards. They all say the failure of column 79
along with non sufficient fire retardant in the holes where
wires run through overhead tresses were the cause. If this is
the case every building erected before 1988 with any level of
fire is in serious danger of immediate catastrophic collapse.
Yet not once even in other countries where the codes may be more lax
has a single steel frame building totally collapsed due to office fires.

And "office fires" not diesel nor explosives is what brought 7WTC
down, according to NIST. Article 4 in the suit says 9,000 gallons
of Diesel did it . NIST's report says diesel had nothing to do with it.
Can't have it both ways. The reason for the insurance payout
doesn't align with NIST's findings. Or lack of findings.
No one finds it odd that billions were paid to Silverstein
but no building codes were changed ?



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak


Yet not once even in other countries where the codes may be more lax
has a single steel frame building totally collapsed due to office fires.

Plasco building in Iran collapsed on 19 January 2017 during a fire.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Free fall for less than 3 seconds proves the physical use of demolitions?

Only physical proof like the resultant sound from the charges cutting pressure waves, demolitions shrapnel, splintered steel columns, metallurgy, windows blown out for blocks proves demolitions.

WTC 7 collapse was initiated in almost total silence with no recorded over pressure event.

Proof of free fall speed is only proof of free fall speed.

Simply state what type of demolitions was use.

www.metabunk.org...




The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.



edit on 19-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Added more items and a quote

edit on 19-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Corrected and added

edit on 19-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Corrected silence



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

You also did not cite any reason the science was wrong for the specific type of structure other than it didn't happen before on other types of buildings.

Cite where a structural steel building over 500 feet tall was ever demolished by charges in an implosion.

If it never happened, must be impossible.
edit on 19-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Also, how long did the fires in WTC 7 burn out of control? Hours? Across how many floors? Didn't WTC 7 have a twenty story tall rip in one side. No fire water due to the collapse of the twin towers?

Yet a complex and sophisticated implosion system, wiring, and detonators, survived raging fires and building damage to perfectly carry out the first implosion of a structural steel building over 500 feet tall?

So where was the control station to initiate the implosion signal? What type of explosives used? Was the fire department in on it after many firefights were killed in the towers?
edit on 19-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 19-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed mire



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
a reply to: neutronflux
The evidence of demolition is proved by
NIST's own admission of free fall occurring for at least
100 feet. Impossible without demo


Prove it.

You believe this to be true but I can show you a short video that proves faster than free fall acceleration using nothing but gravity.

Most truthers would say that it's impossible. But it's not, just counterintuitive. Which is why one can't rely on common sense or what someone posts on some obscure Internet forum, particularly when it's full of uneducated folks.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Just jumping in to provide my .02, but I am no engineer and I admittedly made up my mind years ago on this subject.

9/11 Commissioners Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton believe it was set up to fail.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I am sure that there are some objects or documents that are so sensitive, that they are not allowed to be seen outside of a very small circle of people. They are probably So sensitive, that the structures that house them may have mechanisms that can also destroy them. I cannot certainly dismiss this possibility, especially with the technology we have today.

Not saying that this happened in this case, as I am certainly "out of my league" in structural mechanics, but would others agree that there are probably some buildings in the world that have this capability?
edit on 19-5-2017 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ventian
Just jumping in to provide my .02, but I am no engineer and I admittedly made up my mind years ago on this subject.

9/11 Commissioners Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton believe it was set up to fail.




That's not an engineering report.

Their comment is totally believable and yet still is not even evidence of an inside job.

It's totally believable that the report was set up to fail to protect the bureaucrats and fat cats in DC, and to hide the fact that the US alphabet agencies got caught napping.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

That is the true conspiracy. And maybe US politicians pulling strings at immigration for their buddies in the Middle East which unknowingly let the 19 terrorists into the USA.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: cashlink

Yes the NIST report is credible.


While not an engineer, but an ordnance veteran (demolition and disposal), my first impression watching 911 live was, "controlled--".

Later, having watched the report, and reading the particulars, my first impression was who paid them to put that out there. For average public Joe and Jane, it's understandable. For veterans in the ordnance business, I would have been embarrassed, to say the least, to go on national television and make a fool of myself like they did.

By the way, a former NIST employee revealed that the report was manufactured, and key evidence was not considered, not mentioned in the report.

ADDENDUM:

A former CIA agent, on his death bed, revealed he led a small team to rig building 7 weeks before 9/11.
edit on 21-7-2017 by SecretSector because: Added ADDENDUM



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs and molten steel. We know that's crap and dishonest.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: SecretSector

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: cashlink

Yes the NIST report is credible.


While not an engineer, but an ordnance veteran (demolition and disposal), my first impression watching 911 live was, "controlled--".

Later, having watched the report, and reading the particulars, my first impression was who paid them to put that out there. For average public Joe and Jane, it's understandable. For veterans in the ordnance business, I would have been embarrassed, to say the least, to go on national television and make a fool of myself like they did.

By the way, a former NIST employee revealed that the report was manufactured, and key evidence was not considered, not mentioned in the report.

ADDENDUM:

A former CIA agent, on his death bed, revealed he led a small team to rig building 7 weeks before 9/11.



Then please do tell what explosives were used at the WTC......

Richard Gage fizzle no flash bombs?

Or the thermite ceilings tiles?

Where was the boom from a charge generating enough force to cut steel with a pressure wave?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs and molten steel. We know that's crap and dishonest.


Prove there was molten steel. Dr Wood went through and debunked that molten aluminum cannot glow. Then the molten material would be mixed with plastics, lead, copper, ash, and smoldering material.

Which conspiracist has the truth? Wood and Dustification? Gage and fizzle no flash bombs?

Another truth movement narrative that is false.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Loud bangs are not explosions. Also, vending machine compressors, backup battery power supplies, air conditioner compressors, and fire extinguishers are some items that will explode during a fire.

The elevators fell when the jet impacts cut the elevator cables. That would be a loud bang.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs and molten steel. We know that's crap and dishonest.


Prove there was molten steel. Dr Wood went through and debunked that molten aluminum cannot glow. Then the molten material would be mixed with plastics, lead, copper, ash, and smoldering material.

Which conspiracist has the truth? Wood and Dustification? Gage and fizzle no flash bombs?

Another truth movement narrative that is false.


Over 30 Eyewitnesses saw it, why do i have prove anything to you? NIST should have interviewed those people who claim they saw instead of lying and saying nobody saw anything like that. And please stop following me around you like a bee.
edit on 25-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs



All the significant bangs were recorded in the seismographs.

2 plane impacts.

2 building collapses.

3 gas explosions.

Do you have evidence of any other bangs?

Why are they not recorded the seismographs?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join