"NIST omitted critical structural features from WTC 7 report." says Attorney to DoC Inspector Gen.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Having a board of directors does not make it a membership organization.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I sure hope they didn't kill Barry Jennings, for just so happening to have gotten stuck in building 7 on that day, what a nice guy.. genuine, loving, faithful.

I would like to imagine that they came to Barry and offered to have him fake his death and live happily ever after with a few million bucks or something like that - because he "disappeared", with the Private Investigastor just referring it over to the police, as a type of missing person or something worth investigating, while asking Avery never to contact him again (to protect Barry maybe..?) - the reason being, not because he was murdered, but that his death was faked and the man and his family relocated - all on the basis that if he ever came out or talked about it, or even made a move in that direction that then he and his family would then surely lose their lives, as per the threats he was receiving, which is why he begged of the Loose Change guys NOT to put his interview into their documentary. It was only when the BBC hit piece on WTC7 came out that the Loose Change guys felt that they had to release the video of the interview, so as to retain their credibility in regards to their reference to his testimony (without identifying him directly) in their documentary.

Then poof he's gone, (a death reported), house empty and up for sake - no trail. Gone.

Three days later the very longggg awaited WTC7 NIST Report is released to the public.

Coincidence?


I HOPE that Barry Jennings is still alive, poor guy, can't talk about his experience, then again he's a man of faith and God knows all things. So either way he's in God's hands, whether dead, or alive.

God love him what a nice man.

Don't forget Barry Jennings.

Don't try to find him though either!!


Regards,

NAM

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Is it known that this are "as-built" drawings or planned drawings?

spooky24

I don't want to hear about free fall or beams and struts or any other kind of buzz words or phrases.

Since you all lack skills in criminal investigation I'll explain it to you.

Motive-need to commit the crime Means- ability to commit the crime Opportunely-chance to commit the crime

The Dutch guy said it would need 30-40 people 'at the right time' to plan the explosives or whatever he said. Explain what the 'right time' is. By the way what kind of Dutch is that guy speaking-I can't make out anything-sounds like German and English mashed together. It must be a Belgium dialect or Flemish.

For your information, beams and struts are not buzz words, they are an integral part of an overall design that has been certified to deliver adequate fire protection.

We live in a blame culture, so if a window fell out of a high rise building, killing someone below there would be a lawsuit.

The lawyers would target the engineers, manufacturers, designers, builders, installers, architects, and so on, eventually apportioning blame to one, or several groups.

The reverse appears to have happened, with only the hijacked planes being held accountable.

Maybe, if the designers were forced to account for the building failures they could prove their designs to be robust enough to withstand the fires that day, think about that.

As for you second point about when is the right time to plant explosives, let me try to answer that for you.

Err, when nobody is looking.

ownbestenemy
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Is it known that this are "as-built" drawings or planned drawings?

That's a good point. I'm a tech (3D modeling and database management mainly) for a large E&C firm and there can be huge difference between design drawings and as-builts. Issues tend to crop up during construction and engineers make changes to the design. The drawing set NIST used for their analysis could potentially make a big difference.

Not that I would believe anything they have to say about it after the original report, anyone who believes it even possible that fires brought down that building in that matter is being willfully ignorant in my opinion.

jaffo
For crying out loud can this one die already? There was no conspiracy by the government to pull this off. Yeesh...

then they should release the data of the claims they push as truth.....after all, it's ALL they have as far as supporting EVIDENCE goes....

Man, there are soooooooo many expert engineers on here, lol.

reply to post by jaffo


and this is all you have to attempt to discredit what I posted....a personal attack....how bout we take my post apart one by one and you can point out what YOU seem to recognize but fail to respond to, other than the attack at me.

why is it not one person pushing the official claims can use the 10,000+ page NIST report to quote support for those claims...

I made a reference to opening a physics text and reading about gravitational acceleration.....that SAME rate of acceleration seen in WTC7 looks kind of funny next to the claim of "fire we can't see from the windows"....huh

tell me bout this amazing steel eating fire.....

So Building 7 was hit with some debris from the "collapse" of the north tower, if i'm not mistaken. There's a couple of photos showing the corner of Bldg 7 gouged out a bit

reply to post by NewAgeMan


not according to the scientific investigation...not enough to cause collapse.....we see no video of debris hitting 7.....just the dust cloud.

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

but the damage is there none the less......Jennings and Hess have an explanation for that.

how precisely, did the raging inferno(s) as reported by NIST, actually take place?

NIST didn't report an inferno....DUH-bunker sites do that...'interpreting'...the NIST report so people will...'understand'...yea!

but I don't see how this quote can confuse anyone..

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"....there is no inferno shown in the NIST WTC7 report.....the OS pushers had to draw an illustration to push their ...claim of an inferno that no one sees.

What was the alleged causal mechanism of those fires to begin with, and how were the fires distributed throughout the building, and why and how did they spread, according to NIST?

...?????....

they don't
they refuse to
they just bully an agenda.

but we all know what science demands to allow structural mass to globally accelerate unified equal to g., a clear path, and there is nothing they can do about that...cept get their future affairs in order.

our biggest obstacle and always has been to inform the masses so we can get rid of these idiots once and for all......the ones there can't do it....they have a habit of dying suddenly. this must be done by the American People.

When people represent AE911Truth as a membership org, their trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or they've already had the wool pulled over theirs. This leads me to think poorly of the letter's author.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


well then, I will toss the organization in the gutter as soon as YOU tell me how fire alone removes the 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds, [when kink forms], to allow structural mass acceleration EQUAL to Gravity, 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"


lol.....and please don't tout the "inside columns are already gone and it's only the outer facade we see accelerating."....

if that support disappears, it WILL be reflected on the exterior.....the massive load is NOT going to remain where it is when ALL it's support is removed inside....it can not magically float till the ...fantasy'...is through.
also the facade is a non-load bearing cosmetic application ATTACHED to the perimeter vertical support....it can not support itself let alone anything else.

DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Having a board of directors does not make it a membership organization.

having evidential support of the claims pushed as truth means you do not need distractions to persuade.

hey...how bout a peer review?????

funny thing about 'peer reviews'....when they are based on agenda instead of evidence.....it eventually comes out.
2005 NIST found no reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11

2008 NIST ignores their own science to push an agenda they do not have to prove per Presidential Executive Order.

reply to post by yadboy


Yep I won't sway one way or the other until that is known. Not to say there should be a huge difference, but initial design documents (or even 100% design) can differ from the "as-builts". These files from FOIA request are quite large.

reply to post by hgfbob

By trying to change the subject, you have conceded my point.

While AE911 claims a large amount of members, what it fails to acknowledge is the amount of fully qualified engineers, architects etc that aren't part of their site. The membership number sounds impressive in isolation, but is actually a very small percentage of the numbers of such qualified people globally, and a look at their petition signatories shows that the numbers are swelled with unqualified members of the public, mechanical engineers and people who took structural courses but work in completely different fields.

hgfbob

Man, there are soooooooo many expert engineers on here, lol.

reply to post by jaffo

 

and this is all you have to attempt to discredit what I posted....a personal attack....how bout we take my post apart one by one and you can point out what YOU seem to recognize but fail to respond to, other than the attack at me.

why is it not one person pushing the official claims can use the 10,000+ page NIST report to quote support for those claims...

I made a reference to opening a physics text and reading about gravitational acceleration.....that SAME rate of acceleration seen in WTC7 looks kind of funny next to the claim of "fire we can't see from the windows"....huh

tell me bout this amazing steel eating fire.....

Steel doesn't eat fire. But it weakens it considerably. You would know this if you cared about actual facts. As far as something "not feeling" or "not looking" right, I couldn't care less. You aren't an expert and your "feelings" mean nothing to me in terms of proving what happened, it's just that simple. If you feel I am attacking you, it's because your ideas have no merit or foundation. Sorry.

neformore
The membership number sounds impressive in isolation, but is actually a very small percentage of the numbers of such qualified people globally

That point would have merit if every qualified individual in the world has been made aware of the subject matter, and has specified an opinion one way or the other. But they haven't. Therefore, they cannot be added to either side of the equation.

ownbestenemy
Is it known that this are "as-built" drawings or planned drawings?

What AE911T has listed on their site is this:

• Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center

• Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center

The 2,587 files released through FOIA #12-009 include steel erection plans, column schedules, bracing elevations and details. Of these, 22 sheets in PDF format include erection drawings for floors one through 17, and 42 sheets in TIF format include erection drawings for the entire building. The remaining 2,523 sheets in TIF format illustrate various fabrication details throughout the structure.

Are the "erection drawings" the same as the "as-built" drawings? These are the only drawings of WTC 7 that are available, and were the drawings NIST used and had in their possession.

DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by hgfbob

 

By trying to change the subject, you have conceded my point.

the subject is 9-11.....and your point was to......

reply to post by jaffo

Steel doesn't eat fire. But it weakens it considerably.

prove it occurs here to ALLOW global unified collapse ....x3

as I posted, 2005 NIST scientific investigation did NOT find evidence of this occurring...

"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 we have a 'STUMPED' 2008 NIST whom 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, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
tech 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...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.

You would know this if you cared about actual facts.

I just reposed facts because you refused to read my initial post

As far as something "not feeling" or "not looking" right, I couldn't care less.

uhm.....that is your insertion here....not once do I mention that...lol...I don't need to!!!
but it seems you are pulling out ALL the stops to make an ATTEMPT to discredit me.....

You aren't an expert and your "feelings" mean nothing to me in terms of proving what happened, it's just that simple. If you feel I am attacking you, it's because your ideas have no merit or foundation. Sorry

wow.....look at you go girl!

noting like TRYING to take the post in a TOTALLY different direction huh little one.....

I mention no "feelings" little one......just the DEMAND for your supporting evidence of the crap you push as truth.....so, I can take this post to mean, you have nothing!

Supporting EVIDENCE that NIST lies a lot about the facts that matter :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop
www.journalof911studies.com...

Refreshing thinking by Graeme MacQueen. He is the first person I found on-line, to understand the immense important technique I introduced many years before. He wrote his above masterpiece on WTC 1 and 2 in 2009.
I introduced this kind of reasoning with my 2005 WTC 7 Cianca photo its NIST time stamp of the east penthouse first roof denting, compared to the LDEO seismic records time stamps of the WTC 7 collapse :

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

He does a much better job than me on the Twin Towers.
I merely indicated in my 2005 WTC 7 thesis that those two towers also showed wide discrepancies in event-start times, when one compared the video and photo records of 9/11 with the LDEO seismic records.

I have re-calculated the two Twin Tower collapses from their LDEO insensitive 100 nm/s sensitivity to the same 10 nm/s sensitivity as that from the WTC 7 collapse :

100 nm/s :

Ten times more sensitive (10 nm/s instead of 100 nm/s) :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

100 nm/s :

Ten times more sensitive (10 nm/s instead of 100 nm/s) :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

As you can see clearly, they used about the same amount of explosive force to bring those three buildings down.
These original WTC 7 10 nm/s graph's starting amplitudes from LDEO are surprisingly identical to my two 10 nm/s graphs their starting amplitudes from the two Twin Tower collapses, above.

I'm really excited to have at last found a fellow 9/11 researcher's precise descriptions and calculations based on the video records of the collapse initiations of both Twin Towers, and his comparison of these with LDEO's seismic records of these two collapses.
I just hope he got his ideas off my 2005 thesis, then I indeed have not done all that work in vain.


I do not understand at all, why there seems to be such a dis-interest in my WTC 7 thesis and this well thought-out Twin Towers thesis of Graeme MacQueen.

In fact, in my opinion, our two separate thesis are by far, enough solid evidence, that the whole day of 9/11 was a set-up from the very first beginning.
Meticulously pre-planned and meticulously executed.


I advice the readers to really deep-read what Graeme wrote in this master piece.
He offers so much doubt towards NIST's reasonings, based on solid evidence accompanying his reasoning all the time; that alone should be enough to kick-start the US Congress into opening a new, independent investigation into the day of 9/11.

So, ask yourself what can be the reason that this will never happen. And then start thinking, reading and developing your own thoughts on 9/11.

Because they are only afraid of one event.
The rise of the well informed masses.

Additional evidence :

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?
Source PDF.

Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job
(Updated Version II)”, Journal for 9/11 Studies, Volume 3 (September 2006)
Source PDF.

Thread with explanations of the evidence that WTC 7 was an engineered demolition.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I'd wager that every single one of them with a vested interest in structural design and mechanics saw it, or has seen footage of it.

This was, after all, the most televised terrorist attack and subsequent structural failure in the world, and appeared in every peer journal.