It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The photos that you stand behind are a fraud.
You obviously cannot answer the questions I have put to you,
have done your research by only looking at 'truther' websites instead of visiting the source material.
Your motto is "DENY IGNORANCE", you have failed it.
I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone so unable to do any research they think no firefighters commented on exterior damage.
What does an honorary firefighter have to do with taken photos of the alleged gash on WTC 7? And all he got was two out of focus, or blurred photos.
He was allowed into areas that non firefighters were not.
Yes, the street in front of WTC7 was filled with debris, there was smoke exiting the entire south face of WTC7 and from early in the afternoon, even firefighters were prevented from approaching it due to collapse risk.
This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Regardless of where it was published, it's on the NIST website and was obviously geared toward the WTC study: www.fire.nist.gov...
Look, I just told you I would look through the report myself and find it all myself if you give me time to do so. Are you not satisfied with that?
Because I personally trust Jim Hoffman but I don't expect YOU to.
My advice to you is don't believe everything NIST says, either. If this WAS an inside job, the federal government would be the last place you would hear it, ok? Which is WHY you shouldn't take everything they say at face value, but actually use your own brain and think about what they are saying they are doing every time they change parameters, assume things that didn't actually happen, etc.
Who is speculating? It sounds to me like you don't know that he is wrong, and without checking yourself, you are just assuming he is. At least HE quoted the NIST report to support his claim, no matter if it came from a summary or not, they still said it, so one would assume they did what they said.
Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure.
In the structural models described in this report, elements corresponding to the heavily damaged and severed columns were removed, while those corresponding to moderately or lightly damaged columns were retained without modifications
You know all this stuff makes their data unrealistic, right? By definition, since it didn't actually happen that way?
What it IS is unsupported by data,
And I guess I'm still waiting on it. Which is fair enough, because I'm dreading digging through the report to find everything Hoffman was talking about.
I should mention I don't like run-arounds either. I already think this report is pure trash and a whitewash, so having all this trouble finding the right data to cite isn't impressing me much. So far all I have seen is they have shown a whole inch of deformation from a sagging truss. I haven't seen the evidence of great heating of the perimeter columns, either.
Great! That's what I'm talking about. Now how do they prove that, is it reproducible, where is the data, etc. That's the next logical step here.
No PE being lost means the building is not doing the work.