New Survey on 9/11 WTC building 7

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Further, I do not really believe any of the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. I do believe that the cover-up (if any) would be due to the severe level of incompetence in the intelligence community of the United States leading up to that day. The ball was dropped, and Americans paid for it with their lives.

That is what I believe. The lack of response to a credible threat leading up to 9/11 was covered up. Nothing more.




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 

what do you think this suggest and is there anything that would change your mind, or is it made up? (no pun intended)
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.



As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
1. Rapid onset of collapse


Minus the internal collapse prior to global collapse, of course.


2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction


Unverified. The videos with sound do not contain an explosion just prior to the collapse. This does not count as evidence.


3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration


The penthouse falling in first automatically discredits the "symmetrical structural failure" idea. Free-fall took place only as far as the damage taken by WTC 1's debris was reported. So, this is another false assertion. Free-fall was not continuous and it was not symmetrical.


4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint


No evidence of implosion, it did collapse completely, but footprint appears to be subjective. It damaged a whole other block with its debris. If that counts as footprint, then I guess every building that has ever collapsed ever fell into its footprint.


5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds


Drywall, massive amounts of concrete, and powdery fireproofing on every single steel member in the structures accounts for this. Morons like to forget that these substances existed.


6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional


Yeah, when they leave out the information about the penthouse collapse, the damage, and the 7 hour fire.


7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY


Because they could see the damage, the fire, hear the creaking, and measure the leaning. Firefighters created a collapse radius because they were afraid that it was going to collapse based on readily observable facts. Some thought it might take till the next morning, and others thought it would collapse any minute. This is on record, and the ignorance surrounding it is amazing.


In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples


Couldn't have been from heat and water and chemicals that the firefighters were spraying on the burning pile of debris, right?


9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses


That's a downright lie. Some said they witnessed what they thought might have been molten iron, but that is impossible to verify by eye, and no one has ever said there were "tons".


10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples


So if I scrape some paint off a piece of rusting iron and check for aluminum and rust content, if I find it then I've found incendiary thermite? More than one independent laboratory have analyzed the dust, and the results show that there is nothing close to thermite in them. They found the spheres, but those are not indicative of anything except the presence of spheres. They could have come about in various types of processings. The biggest flaw of the "truth movement" is that it makes assumptions and acts like those assumptions are the only possible answer to the presence of the things they see.


WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations


It took around an hour of burning after the initial structural damage. That's not slow enough? There was visible deformation, the outer walls around the burning area were pulling inward. For the North tower, people reported firefighters as evacuating anyone from a rescue effort because they saw the North tower LEANING.


2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)


That is just wrong. If there was enough resistance from below to cause the material to be forced to find a path of lesser resistance, then yes, it would have just toppled over. However, the energy and force was enough to cause the collapse of each individual floor on the way down without enough resistance to stop it. You're thinking trees, and that doesn't apply to steel structures.


3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel


And the plane blew off the fireproofing over the damaged area. It was far more susceptible to support weakening by fire. Like I keep saying, it was damage+fire that did them in. Remove either one and I think they'd have stayed standing.


4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.


But they weren't structurally damaged. I rest my case.

Was this extensive enough? Or do I have to write a book?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
rense.com...

NIST's Global Impact/Collapse Analyses

In one of its most important projects (NCSTAR 1-2), NIST scientists developed a global impact analysis: to estimate the structural damage to the WTC caused by the Boeing 767s. In this study the NIST considered three different scenarios. These ranged from less damage to extreme damage, with a moderate alternative (described as "the base") in the middle. As it happened, all three scenarios accurately predicted the impact damage to the WTC exterior at the point of entry; although with regard to WTC 1 the moderate case was a slightly better match.[40] The three differed greatly, however, in predicting the number of severed columns at the WTC core, a datum obviously of great importance. In the case of WTC 1 the lesser alternative predicted only one severed core column, the moderate alternative predicted three, while the extreme alternative predicted five to six. In the case of WTC 2 the disparity was even greater: The lesser alternative predicted three severed columns, the moderate five, and the extreme case no less than ten.[41]

Although the NIST never satisfactorily resolved these differences, it immediately threw out the less severe alternatives, citing two reasons in the Executive Summary report: first, because they failed to predict observable damage to the far exterior walls; and second, because they did not lead to a global collapse.[42]

On 9/11 the first tower sustained visible damage to its opposite. i.e., south wall, caused by an errant landing gear and by a piece of the fuselage, which were later recovered from below. Also, at the time of the second impact a jet engine was seen exiting WTC 2's opposite wall at high speed, after passing through the building. It was later found on Murray Street, several blocks northeast of the WTC. In its summary report the NIST leads us to believe that it used the observable damage to the far walls caused by these ejected jet plane parts to validate its simulations. Yet, in one of its supplementary documents the NIST admits that "because of [computer] model size constraints, the panels on the south side of WTC 1 were modeled with a coarse resolution...[and for this reason] The model....underestimates the damage to the tower on this face."[43] But­­­notice­­­this means that none of the alternatives accurately predicted the exit damage.[44]

This admission, deeply buried in the 43 volume report, is fatal to the NIST's first rationale for rejecting the lesser alternative, since it was no less accurate than the moderate and extreme cases. (Or, put differently: It was no more inaccurate.) Which, of course, means that the NIST rejected the lesser alternative for only one reason: because it failed to predict a global collapse. The simulations for WTC 2 suffered from the same modeling defect. As the supplementary documentation states, "None of the three WTC 2 global impact simulations resulted in a large engine fragment exiting the tower."[45] Yet, here again, the NIST rejected the lesser alternative. We can thank researcher Eric Douglas for digging deeper than the summary report. Otherwise, this flaw, tantamount to the devil lurking in the fine print, might never have come to light.

But biased reasoning did not deter the NIST. Later, it also tossed out the moderate (base) alternatives, ultimately adopting the most extreme scenarios in its subsequent global collapse analysis­­­even though, as noted, the moderate alternatives were no less accurate, from a predictive standpoint, than the extreme cases. In fact, with regard to predicting the entry damage to WTC 1, as noted, the moderate alternative was actually a better match.

The NIST report offers no scientific rationale for this decision, only the pithy comment that the moderate alternatives "were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared with observed events."[46] And what, pray tell, were these "observed events"? The report explains that "structural models....indicated that....the buildings would have continued to stand indefinitely."[47] Here, at least, the NIST is more forthright than in the case of the lesser alternatives.

Things only get worse.

As it happened, even the extreme alternatives required further tinkering to be acceptable. The report informs us that "Complete sets of simulations were then performed for cases B and D [the extreme alternatives]. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality."[my emphasis][48] In other words, NIST scientists worked backwards from the collapse, tweaking the extreme alternatives until their computer model finally spat out the desired result consistent with their assumption, which never wavered, that the 767 impacts ultimately were at the root of everything on 9/11. Of course, the NIST report never tells us what





new topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join