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.

 

Revisiting Word Trade Center 7

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





They are already told us "WHO" did it and "WHY" they did it, why won't they tell us HOW?


The did tell us HOW you just dont like the answer.

They only failed to release part of the data input for the computer simulation, not all of it.

Its quite clear from your post that your information in relation to 9/11 is quite limited to what we dont know rather than what we do know.

I am curious as to what your sources are.

Also you did not answer my question.




posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





They are already told us "WHO" did it and "WHY" they did it, why won't they tell us HOW?


The did tell us HOW you just dont like the answer.

They only failed to release part of the data input for the computer simulation, not all of it.

Its quite clear from your post that your information in relation to 9/11 is quite limited to what we dont know rather than what we do know.

I am curious as to what your sources are.

Also you did not answer my question.

But that "HOW" has never happened before and then the parts they don't release is what numbers they put into the simulation is what they don't tell us. What temperature did those office fires create? Cause 1&2 had planes crash into them. So those towers can't be used to justify how 7 went down.
And I refuse to go off of what the OS has told me. There are holes in the story so that discredits everything in my eye.
You know you ridicule me for just "not liking" the answer but you do the same thing.... This was a mass murder of innocent people and I want the the truth, in detail. Not just a bunch of, well we collected this evidence but we can't show it to you, take our word for it. Would that defense fly for anyone else in a court of law? Should our gov be held above the process every American must follow?
Sources are going to be the same as yours, websites dedicated to finding the truth on what happened that day. Not some report that I can't fact check explaining how something that has never happened before, happens

Once NIST or FEMA comes out and explains the freef all of all 3 towers, again never happened outside a CD, I'll beleive everything they have to say. The free fall aspect of all 3 towers is my smoking gun. They replicate that with just fire and I'm sold
edit on thSun, 19 Jan 2014 12:31:06 -0600America/Chicago120140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


And i already told you, I can't tell you my sources, I used top secret ways of obtaining those and I wouldn't want to compromise the security of me and my family (Gov and its citizens if you will) NIST can do that so I should be allowed to do the same if you are going to take what they have to say as official but then question it, which I am not sure how that works. How can you believe and source something you don't 100% agree with?
edit on thSun, 19 Jan 2014 12:45:30 -0600America/Chicago120143080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Firstly the towers did not fall in free fall

Also if you disagree with me that is fine, you are more than entitled to your own opinion on what happened.

However unless you can back it up with hard facts and evidence do not tell me that I am factually wrong when i make assertions like "thermite was never used in the WTC-7" or that "Jennings has been misrepresented" or when i actually go through the reports (have you even read them) and point out what the worlds leading engineers say caused the collapse.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Firstly the towers did not fall in free fall

Also if you disagree with me that is fine, you are more than entitled to your own opinion on what happened.

However unless you can back it up with hard facts and evidence do not tell me that I am factually wrong when i make assertions like "thermite was never used in the WTC-7" or that "Jennings has been misrepresented" or when i actually go through the reports (have you even read them) and point out what the worlds leading engineers say caused the collapse.



Ok 110 stories in less then 10 seconds but that's not a free fall, your right, the floors pancaked each other down. They just did it in incriminates of less then a second. Agree to disagree

The hard facts you have only existed that day. No other office fire has ever brought a building down, every building around the towers that fell were under the same conditions, obviously not struck by a plane, and no other building collapsed in the way those 3 did... As a total collapse from the top to bottom, almost in its own foot print.
You deny Jennings interview based off your own time line and its only a difference of like 15 min. In the Loose Change interview he gets coached, so that is poor interviewing. He stated that they misrepresented him, and why is his testimony just disregarded because you question parts of it but you are ok with sticking to the NIST report when you have questions about it...
Did I ever use the word thermite? You are assuming i subscribe to that theory, please show me so I can see why it was relevant to point out.
And nothing in the offical report can be taken for offical word. As in nothing in that report could be used in a court of law. The engineers state that those conditions could cause a building to collapse. They don't come out and say yes, the fire and damage did cause the collapse. If this was a terrorist attack like we are led to believe then it was murder, I want my official answer to a MASS MURDER to hold up in court. Or does that make me unamerican?
edit on thSun, 19 Jan 2014 13:35:50 -0600America/Chicago120145080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

edit on thSun, 19 Jan 2014 13:36:53 -0600America/Chicago120145380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   


It is my position that WTC-7 collapsed as a result of its weaknesses that were intrinsic in its design that meant it was unable to withstand the damage that it sustained and the fires raging within its walls that were caused by the collapse of the North Tower.
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


oh, it was a shoddy building???...lol...NOT!

tell me of these "weaknesses"?
specially since they built the OEM they had to upgrade the load bearing capacity below the 23rd floor....

tell me of it's design flaws......cantilever system is common practice.....load bearing is monitored by the City and has requirements...

"fire"?

that the 2005 NIST can't see???...NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

uhm, global unified acceleration EQUAL to gravity was measured from the facade that is ATTACHED to the perimeter vertical support because the facade is a non load bearing COSMETIC application. it can not support itself let alone anything else.

but the point is...WHERE is the FIRE needed to remove the required 105 vertical feet of structural mass globally before 1.74 seconds?????

FFA need a CLEAR PATH to accelerate....tell me HOW fire does this BEFORE 1.74seconds...

"falling tower debris"...did NOT hit WTC7 to cause collapse....you have NO supporting evidence of that including 2005 NIST whom found that did not occur.

so please tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, BEFORE 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED immediately following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

yet for some reason, 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
briefing

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


It's a shame this died out when you posted you last post, Chalk full on good info not really much to argue against.
Wish more would see it, would love for some to come and refute it haha



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

hgfbob
so please tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, BEFORE 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED immediately following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.
[

Is this true? You can tell whether a building came down under his own weight or because of explosives just by measuring the time it collapses?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 


It doesn't prove it no, he offers a solution outside of what we are being told and which makes the most sense to him based off the numbers.
While it doesn't prove that explosions were used, it does prove that 8 floors of building were missing as that building fell. Which would be unprecedented fire damage to a building

He also is showing the numbers to show that fire alone cloud not replicate the info he had presented



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Nist never looked into what caused the building to collapse. Their mission was to explain the collapse with fire and damage from debrie alone and they did the best job they could with the data they had.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Merinda
Nist never looked into what caused the building to collapse. Their mission was to explain the collapse with fire and damage from debrie alone and they did the best job they could with the data they had.


And their explanation of the collapse makes no sense... So even though they did the best they can, they are either massively incompetent and just made something up in which case why are you ok with that? Or they lied to cover something up and they did the best they could by coming up with new phenomena. And how can you go into a investigation with a predetermined conclusion?



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





While it doesn't prove that explosions were used


true, but it means they must prove the claim of fire....actually, I could care less about the explosives, even though it's a no-brainier they were obliviously there, I want them to prove the claim fire did all that work....hence the convenient "I don't have to" from NIST

...sorry i left...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 





Is this true? You can tell whether a building came down under his own weight or because of explosives just by measuring the time it collapses?


sorry, true.

this has nothing to do with the buildings weight....that is the problem...

DUH-bunker sites and official story crooners here like to confuse people with the natural gravitational collapse of a building that uses it's collapsing mass to destroy itself in order to collapse, with that of structural mass accelerating equal to g., that hole/path is already removed ahead of the collapse wave in order to accelerate at a rate equal to g.





Nist never looked into what caused the building to collapse. Their mission was to explain the collapse with fire and damage from debrie alone and they did the best job they could with the data they had


No, they were Charged by Congress to find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11.

NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)

the scope of the scientific investigation only concerned impact damage and office fire as causes for collapse....2005 NIST were told not to test for explosives and accelerants even though that was deemed mandatory after the first bombing in '93 per National Fire Protection Agency......but not this time...

and as I already posted, 2005 did not find a reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11 within the parameters of their investigation...

...and 2008 IGNORES that investigation to go in the opposite direction with an official story they don't have to prove.

neither can any one else.....so any so-called peer-reviewed paper that 'esplains' these collapses, ALL base their initial findings on the NIST unreleased data......

Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using nothing to validate the claim, is called BULLSH*T!

no matter who says it.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





unless you can back it up with hard facts and evidence do not tell me that I am factually wrong


I did...and you are, factually and scientifically...please come back and argue........



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

hgfbob
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





unless you can back it up with hard facts and evidence do not tell me that I am factually wrong


I did...and you are, factually and scientifically...please come back and argue........


He has been pretty well picked apart on this thread, all 10k+ words of it LOL
I doubt he will be back



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


I always get to the party late.....

I really should pay more attention here...



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy. Their motive was redevelopment by way of demolition disguised as a terror attack. Frank Lowy of the Westfield Group.

"Silverstein had built Seven World Trade Center in 1987 on property leased from the Port Authority, but the six-building World Trade Center complex remained under public control until Silverstein and Lowy obtained the 99-year lease on July 26, 2001. The new deal left Silverstein in control of 10.6 million square feet of WTC office space, and gave Lowy control of the 427,000-square-foot retail mall in the WTC basement." 911review.com...

Look at this Google Earth view of World Trade 7. The yellow trapezoid is the footprint of the original World Trade 7. The light green pyramid is the footprint of the current Silverstein Family Park.

Notice the shape and design of the park resembles the Eye of Providence which appears on the Great Seal of the United States. It's on the reverse side of the $1 bill. That is a clue that this was done for the almighty dollar.

Annuit Coeptis - translates to - "S/he approves of the undertakings" Novus Ordo Seclorum - translates to - "New World Order"
Satan approves of his undertakings.
en.wikipedia.org...
Notice that the Silverstein Family Park pyramid is pointing directly towards the spot where World Trade 2 stood. Silverstein is pointing to his "undertakings." Now look at this photo of the fountain in Silverstein Family Park. It represents a stick stuck into the eye of America, thereby blinding her.


"Frank Lowy Set To Dominate Retail In Lower Manhattan Now As New World Trade Center Emerges From the Ashes"
jewishbusinessnews.com...

Follow the money...



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   
While I do believe the September 11 attacks were already acknowledged by the security intelligence in the USA and everything that happened was deliberate, I don't believe it was an "inside job". It was just a pretext to enter war with oil rich countries, nothing more. The OP's thread is very good and does actually provide scientific research and evidence, something that the average "tin foil hat American" can't recognize, only because his distorted view of the world would crumble like a house of cards. And yes, I'm a shill, a disinfo agent and I do work for the NSA dpt in Portugal. /irony



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Turner construction
I made the post yet people didn't do any digging themselves.

They were a tenant.
They apparently worked fireproofing the floors which were struck in the so called terrorist attack.

I'm saying nothing else as I have already posted previously.

I'm not for one minute saying I'm right but posted in the hope that members would do some digging and start working together to find the truth on this topic and so many others discussed here on ATS.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

jazz10
Turner construction
I made the post yet people didn't do any digging themselves.

They were a tenant.
They apparently worked fireproofing the floors which were struck in the so called terrorist attack.

I'm saying nothing else as I have already posted previously.

I'm not for one minute saying I'm right but posted in the hope that members would do some digging and start working together to find the truth on this topic and so many others discussed here on ATS.


Which building, 1 or 2? I worked on jobs where Turner Construction was the prime contractor. I remember they were generally hated by just about everybody. I shall dig for some info on these dogs.



edit on 28-2-2014 by Mikeultra because: ??



"Turner Construction Company, assigned to re-fireproof the steel frames of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers during the late 1990s, who also occupied space on the 38th floor of WTC 1 and was later assigned to quickly collect and remove the wreckage of the WTC towers destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, also supervised the 2000 implosion of Seattle Kingdome during this same period."
911blogger.com...
This 2nd link opens a window with options to either open with or save file . I opened it with Windows Media Center. It's a Microsoft Power Point 17 slide view showing the top floors of WTC 1 collapsing. The info points to Turner working on the exact areas that were struck by the ????? and where the collapses started. When it opens use the left and right arrows to toggle it back and forth. jazz10 pointed me towards this info. It shows connections between turner construction and the Bush family. Slam dunk! Thanks jazz10! Sorry if OP feels this is drifting from the topic of WTC 7, but it's all related.
www.cool-places.0catch.com...
edit on 28-2-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JameSimon
 





I don't believe it was an "inside job".


then what do you call it when a 2005 NIST scientific investigation finds NO scientific reason WHY these three buildings fell, but 2008 can IGNORE their own science and claims FIRE, which there is NO evidence of, and "a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon"?....DID!

the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


yet for some reason the 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own 2005 scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, EVER!, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
*ONE*, that will show them the fraud they are, and *TWO*,because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim....[a copy of my letter is below]

....enter WTC7.....

I have NEVER found anyone touting the official claims whom can tell me HOW the FIRE ALONE removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds, when the kink forms, so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking of connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else do we see those SAME numbers as we see in the global unified acceleration rate of a steel frame, 9.8m/s^2 ???
open ANY reputable science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


this is deliberate and EVERY following Administration that allows this to continue is just as guilty as the first and is subject to the same punishment.




Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join