letter to NIST

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by BornPatriot
 


Yes, they did a serious investigation of the possible use of explosives in the most effective form (HE shaped charges) which turned out to be approx 9lb minimum with a pre-cut column. There was no evidence of such large explosions being seen, heard or felt. There were reports of explosion sounds but they were nowhere near the required magnitude.

Thermite was also considered and ruled out early in the investigation for what I consider good reasons like the quantity needed per column cut (min 100 lbs) and problems of holding a 2500C+ reaction against a vertical surface long enough to melt through.



And how hot was the fires inside of the building? If thermite couldn't hold the 2500C+ reaction then how could fires much much MUCH cooler cause a complete and EVEN collapse of a steel structure? Especially when they claim that column 79 starts it all. Just a joke. Yes I read it. Yes I watched it. Sorry, not buying it at all.

And to JT, yes, I just happen to be a person too! Wow, another coincidence in this whole string of coincidences.




posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Also why did it take 7 years for this report to come out if they did not need to do testing?



Now... go back to the 3 questions. That will answer your question.

Thank you



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
They didn't need steel for testing.


Why didn't they need steel for testing?


Because they had all the other evidence. Duh.


This right here is the most 'head in the sand' idiotic response and reasoning I have ever witnessed on this site. Usually I get frustrated (well, used to) with the trolls that were just posting statements to inflame others. JT, you have seriously lost any respect (if you had any left) on this site with this short sighted, blind view of WHY they didn't need any of the steel.

In order to do a proper CRIMINAL investigation of this event they NEEDED to examine the steel as it lay. NOT removed and sanitized and recycled. Not a 'small' sample that was hand picked. ALL OF IT. Yet you seem to have this belief that NONE of the steel needed to be looked at.

You are a person that is simply trying to incite people on this site with your stupid one liners. Thought that was against the rules on this site? Then again, you support people who like to break all sorts of rules. Rules of physics, chemistry and the constitution. So that doesn't surprise me at all that you like to break the basic rules of this site.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Now... go back to the 3 questions. That will answer your question.


What is the date on the final NIST report for building 7? That will be the final answer all questions that NIST failed to do a proper and timely report.



[edit on 25-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
These are some examples of the efforts that should be undertaken when a mass casulty incident occurs.
corrosion-doctors.org...
corrosion-doctors.org...
corrosion-doctors.org...
And this is an example of how testing should be done
www.blind-analysis.jp...&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1 0&md5=21758134bddbba89e1b353ab7dadf541
Oh, heres another good example.
Testing of any relevance cannot be done with out the materials at hand to test. If NIST doesnt have a single sample of steel to test, then it cannot be done. One of the links didnt come out right, sorry.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by spookjr]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well FEMA did recover steel and do testing.


Indeed they did, and perhaps you could tell us what they found out?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


What is the date on the final NIST report for building 7? That will be the final answer all questions that NIST failed to do a proper and timely report.


Wow Roger.... you failed again.

What a surprise huh?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Thermite was also considered and ruled out early in the investigation for what I consider good reasons like the quantity needed per column cut (min 100 lbs) and problems of holding a 2500C+ reaction against a vertical surface long enough to melt through.


I'd be interested in your thoughts.

What if the thermite/mate was used as it is used in everyday life? What I mean is thermite welding of railroad tracks.

www.youtube.com...

Now, Imagine that only modified to sever a girder's connections. As NIST has already shown, this would do the exact same thing as their fire theory.

Only difference is that my theory has precidence and real life to back it up.

I'm willing to listen to NIST but, what would Occam say when all things are equal?

1. Thermite possibly found in the rubble. Molten metal, possibly steel found in the rubble. A way to use thermite to do the very exact same as what NIST has told us is possible.

2. NIST's theory that the first time in history of skyscrapers, steel or concrete that fire has caused a thermal expansion phenomenon that fells the entire building. Without precedence or real life experiments to back up what they say?

To me, at least, it's obvious which is the simpler.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Well, You see I could have put some Eye Witness Testimony on the stand. that basically, opens a huge can of worms. well here see for yourself.

ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6126653143237181605&ei=5HSzSPr8FYToqgLTx9D1DA&q=barry+jennings&vt=lf

followed with video and follow up questions responses for Giuliani's slips of the lip, firemen, policemen, and the owner of WTC 7. all have testimony relavent to a conclusion different from that of the District Attorney has officially offered this court of public opinion.

and lets take a look at official thermal records of the WTC site. etc.. etc..

and then your slapped up side the head with this... stuff...

video.google.com...

do you give up yet... what are the alternatives...?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Wow Roger.... you failed again.


The surprise is that you have still failed to notice that the NIST report is debunked becasue it is not properly done and not timely.

The flinal NIST report for building 7 is a complete failure, another nail in the coffin of the official media story.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


The major problems with the thermite idea are the same now as they always were for me at least. I recall a construction pic of WTC7 posted by bsbray11 showing the incredible size of the steel columns and transfer trusses at the lower level of the building (around 5th floor) and I think the NIST estimate of 100lbs of thermite per cut is extremely conservative and several times that amount would be necessary to have any confidence of success. Add to that the difficulty of getting it to act horizontally which is quite unheard of for thermite uses, remembering it would probably need to be held in place fully surrounding the subject column with a means of ensuring the hottest part of the reaction was at all times in intimate contact with the steel.

OK, maybe it's not impossible but it seems a very very uncertain way to produce a guaranteed failure on demand. I haven't seen any precedents for it's use in large scale demolition either.

Thermal expansion is capable of destructive effects especially when adjacent components are subjected to vastly different levels of heating but I'm keen to hear an explanation for why there was no allowance (or insufficient allowance) in the WTC7 design in the form of expansion joints. I'd say that what happened to that building was never considered a credible contingency at the design stage but that can hardly be considered to be a conspiracy in itself.

This happened with nothing more than solar heating on a hot day and there are far more spectacular examples I've seen (don't have pics of them tho):




[edit on 26/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Griff
 


The major problems with the thermite idea are the same now as they always were for me at least. I recall a construction pic of WTC7 posted by bsbray11 showing the incredible size of the steel columns and transfer trusses at the lower level of the building (around 5th floor) and I think the NIST estimate of 100lbs of thermite per cut is extremely conservative and several times that amount would be necessary to have any confidence of success. Add to that the difficulty of getting it to act horizontally which is quite unheard of for thermite uses, remembering it would probably need to be held in place fully surrounding the subject column with a means of ensuring the hottest part of the reaction was at all times in intimate contact with the steel.


Maybe I wasn't clear enough? I'm talking about using thermite to sever the connections of the girders to the columns (actually according to NIST only one column is needed). This would be acting in the vertical direction exactly like we see everyday when they weld railroad tracks together in the vertical direction using pottery (terra cotta)...i.e. no evidence left after used. After all, who's going to see bits of terra cotta and scream "conspiracy"?

NIST's theory is the horizontal bracing of 9 floors "walking" off their connections brought the building down.

My theory is that the horizontal bracing of 9 floors was severed.

Mine has precedence. NIST had to come up with some "new phenomenon".

So tell me. Did NIST or is NIST really taking all credible alternatives into account? I say no because obviously my thermite theory would work.

Just remember. If NIST's theory is true, we all work in deathtraps. Maybe we should write our congressmen and demand that all government buildings be upgraded as per NIST's suggestions?

BTW, I'm only 51 pages into the report, and so far, I'd be ashamed to have my name associated with it.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
This happened with nothing more than solar heating on a hot day and there are far more spectacular examples I've seen (don't have pics of them tho):




Thanks for the pic. Actually for the equation that goes along with it. I don't have time now, but, I'll be back with some numbers.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Maybe I wasn't clear enough? I'm talking about using thermite to sever the connections of the girders to the columns (actually according to NIST only one column is needed). This would be acting in the vertical direction exactly like we see everyday when they weld railroad tracks together in the vertical direction using pottery (terra cotta)...i.e. no evidence left after used. After all, who's going to see bits of terra cotta and scream "conspiracy"?

NIST's theory is the horizontal bracing of 9 floors "walking" off their connections brought the building down.

My theory is that the horizontal bracing of 9 floors was severed.

Mine has precedence. NIST had to come up with some "new phenomenon".


I think the use of terracotta containers is to aid in cleanliness of thermite welds as the denser liquid iron melts its way througn the hole in the bottom of the pot while the aluminium oxide floats on top of it allowing pure molten iron to enter the joint.

If destruction is the objective simply placing a large enough pile of thermite in the desired location would do the job. For WTC7 the pile or piles would be considerable and hard to miss if placed in advance. You couldn't offer me enough cash to go into a burning building to place several hundred kg of thermite and initiating devices and there'd be a fair amount of preparation required to ensure access to the desired connection(s) and, as I said before, no precedent for its use for this purpose and absolutely no certainty of it even succeeding without a major overkill approach.

But apart from those practicalities I agree - it could produce the same result in terms of the proposed initial failure. The problem is the physical dimensions of the major horizontal beams which appear to be beyond the reach of a thermite reaction even vertically if the whole connection is required to be broken without parts of the connection cooling enough to re-weld themselves before the job is finished.

[edit on 26/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

How was i proven wrong when i have showed that NIST failed to recover any steel for testing?


I already told you. They had other evidence. Don't pretend you don't know that.




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
the report of the NIST was on C-SPAN, and i listened carefully to the whole presentation. the conclusion reached about the collapse of WT7, was that it was due to thermal expansion. however, i failed to hear how the entire building suddenly and uniformly disintergrated downward in such a even collapse. if thermal expansion happened, all columns would have had to reach the same temperture, thus expansion, at the same time or you would have seen one side partially collapse, followed by other parts of the columns supporting floors that physically run out horizontally for hundreds of feet, to be pulled down by the first columns, much like in a "wave". also what was not explained was why didn't the higher floors come down on top of the collapsed floors in some degree of non-destruction, since the top floors and the steel that they were made of were not subject to the intense thermal expansion of the underlying floors.
the NIST report defies common sense. one other aspect of this was the "softball" questions asked by the major media outlets, while at the same time referencing any other troubling questions as those belonging to "conspirecy theorists" automatically making said questions less valid and thus implausable.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by jimmyx]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
the report of the NIST was on C-SPAN, and i listened carefully to the whole presentation. the conclusion reached about the collapse of WT7, was that it was due to thermal expansion. however, i failed to hear how the entire building suddenly and uniformly disintergrated downward in such a even collapse. if thermal expansion happened, all columns would have had to reach the same temperture, thus expansion, at the same time or you would have seen one side partially collapse, followed by other parts of the columns supporting floors that physically run out horizontally for hundreds of feet, to be pulled down by the first columns, much like in a "wave". also what was not explained was why didn't the higher floors come down on top of the collapsed floors in some degree of non-destruction, since the top floors and the steel that they were made of were not subject to the intense thermal expansion of the underlying floors


It doesn't matter my friend. I have said the same thing along with MANY others over and over and over. The one's that have faith in the 'official story' will not answer this. They will give you simple one liners or come back with a stupid question about your expertise in demolition and so on.

Sorry, but you are dead on. It would NOT have collapsed the way it did. If column 79 gave way like they said it did then that side of the building would have come down first. It's a joke and I'm not laughing. I would be embarassed to have my name attached to that report. Because it means when the truth DOES come out (and it will) their names (their families names) will be attached to this horrendous cover up for centuries to come.

They think they are being patriotic and protecting the U.S.A. but they don't realize that their views are skewed. The role of government should be completely transparent. But there is so much mystery and darkness surrounding government now that it's like looking through a lake of mud. Money is at the crux of it all.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
... if thermal expansion happened, all columns would have had to reach the same temperture, thus expansion, at the same time or you would have seen one side partially collapse, followed by other parts of the columns supporting floors that physically run out horizontally for hundreds of feet, to be pulled down by the first columns, much like in a "wave". [edit on 26-8-2008 by jimmyx]


You're free to back up your assertion but just making an assertion without evidence is just an opinion that doesn't demonstrate anything at all.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg

It doesn't matter my friend. I have said the same thing along with MANY others over and over and over. The one's that have faith in the 'official story' will not answer this. They will give you simple one liners or come back with a stupid question about your expertise in demolition and so on.


It doesn't matter to you that our friend has simply made an unsubstantiated assertion with no facts to back it up.

But that is the nature of you believers in the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale."

[edit on 26-8-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by jimmyx
the report of the NIST was on C-SPAN, and i listened carefully to the whole presentation. the conclusion reached about the collapse of WT7, was that it was due to thermal expansion. however, i failed to hear how the entire building suddenly and uniformly disintergrated downward in such a even collapse. if thermal expansion happened, all columns would have had to reach the same temperture, thus expansion, at the same time or you would have seen one side partially collapse, followed by other parts of the columns supporting floors that physically run out horizontally for hundreds of feet, to be pulled down by the first columns, much like in a "wave". also what was not explained was why didn't the higher floors come down on top of the collapsed floors in some degree of non-destruction, since the top floors and the steel that they were made of were not subject to the intense thermal expansion of the underlying floors


It doesn't matter my friend. I have said the same thing along with MANY others over and over and over. The one's that have faith in the 'official story' will not answer this. They will give you simple one liners or come back with a stupid question about your expertise in demolition and so on.

Sorry, but you are dead on. It would NOT have collapsed the way it did. If column 79 gave way like they said it did then that side of the building would have come down first. It's a joke and I'm not laughing. I would be embarassed to have my name attached to that report. Because it means when the truth DOES come out (and it will) their names (their families names) will be attached to this horrendous cover up for centuries to come.

They think they are being patriotic and protecting the U.S.A. but they don't realize that their views are skewed. The role of government should be completely transparent. But there is so much mystery and darkness surrounding government now that it's like looking through a lake of mud. Money is at the crux of it all.


the problem is that this type explanation does not achieve the desired result they intended to project, and thus continues to fuel the mistrust and anger of many americans. the pressure on them must be incredible to "wrap this up" and i feel sorry for those that cannot sit down with the many intelligent and passionate engineers that have been locked out of the discussion, due to the obvious and rather simple questions put forth. the thousands of hours of research by well meaning engineers across this country trying to get some answers or at least a public forum to ask the questions is what is needed, and not some "conspirecy theory" response. it belittles the integrity of everybody involved. and if one does not have that...what message are we sending out to our young men and women who we will depend on for our future. it is truly a sad time in our history.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join