Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That was not the point of that picture. The point was to argue the claim that "normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel". The picture shows that it DOES damage steel.
As for comparing WTC 7 to the Murrah building...............why? They were constructed completely different and damage done to them was completely different. I'm not sure what your comparison is supposed to point out.
As for the collapse of WTC 7, it was FAR from symmetrical. The east penthouse fell into the building far ahead of the exterior walls. So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
And don't forget, that the FDNY had many people survey that building in the hours before it fell. It was no surprise to them when it fell. They had been expecting it all afternoon.
The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did. And they were all left standing. I pointed out the Murrah Building as just one example but there are many other examples showing what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 was incredibly unusual. Something just isn't right with this picture. It should have been better investigated. Unfortunately it's too late now. We'll never know what really happened.
Yes, they were located beneath the towers and received more damage from the fall of the towers. But, they are still not and apples to apples comparisons to WTC 7. They were constructed differently and they were far "shorter" buildings. WTC 5 was 9 stories, as opposed to WTC 7 which was 47 stories. And also, there WAS structural failure in WTC 5 that was not caused by the initial impact of the towers. Floors collapsed between the 8th and 4th floors in eastern part of the building. Mainly due to the fires.
You say that WTC 7 was unusual. I agree. But these were "unusual" events. Unique circumstances. It's hard to compare the failure of a building that had parts of a larger building fall into it, to that of a "usual" office fire.
"in wtc building 5, this large column and beam buckled
on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.
Source: Fema report on wtc 4, 5, and 6, page 15. redirecting..."
fire will indeed weaken steel. That is why steel frame structures are "fire proofed".
those buildings were left standing. They resembled what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. Wtc 7 did not. I have posted photos of these buildngs and others like the murrah building which clearly show wtc 7 was very unusual to say the least. Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical rapid collapse.
that was not the point of that picture. The point was to argue the claim that "normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel". The picture shows that it does damage steel.
As for comparing wtc 7 to the murrah building...............why? They were constructed completely different and damage done to them was completely different. I'm not sure what your comparison is supposed to point out.
As for the collapse of wtc 7, it was far from symmetrical. The east penthouse fell into the building far ahead of the exterior walls. So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
And don't forget, that the fdny had many people survey that building in the hours before it fell. It was no surprise to them when it fell. They had been expecting it all afternoon.
To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.those buildings were left standing. They resembled what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. Wtc 7 did not. I have posted photos of these buildngs and others like the murrah building which clearly show wtc 7 was very unusual to say the least. Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical rapid collapse.
that was not the point of that picture. The point was to argue the claim that "normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel". The picture shows that it does damage steel.
As for comparing wtc 7 to the murrah building...............why? They were constructed completely different and damage done to them was completely different. I'm not sure what your comparison is supposed to point out.
As for the collapse of wtc 7, it was far from symmetrical. The east penthouse fell into the building far ahead of the exterior walls. So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
And don't forget, that the fdny had many people survey that building in the hours before it fell. It was no surprise to them when it fell. They had been expecting it all afternoon.
really could you provide a link to this in the nist report ?
No ?.....of course you cant
...
To believe what i tell you, Not what you see!!!
To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.that was not the point of that picture. The point was to argue the claim that "normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel". The picture shows that it does damage steel.
As for comparing wtc 7 to the murrah building...............why? They were constructed completely different and damage done to them was completely different. I'm not sure what your comparison is supposed to point out.
As for the collapse of wtc 7, it was far from symmetrical. The east penthouse fell into the building far ahead of the exterior walls. So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
And don't forget, that the fdny had many people survey that building in the hours before it fell. It was no surprise to them when it fell. They had been expecting it all afternoon.
really could you provide a link to this in the nist report ?
No ?.....of course you cant
Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials and in interpreting the results came from a large number of individuals and organizations, including The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its contractors and consultants; Silverstein Properties and its contractors and consultants; the City of New York and its departments; the manufacturers and fabricators of the building components; the companies that insured the WTC towers; the building tenants; the aircraft manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including survivors and family members; and the media.
About the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation
Update:
Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
danielnigro - 911guide
In pure conspiracy theorist form, the second paragraph on this page has been taken out of context. Yes, building 7 fires were unfought but that doesn't mean there wasn't firemen on the scene, does it? Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out.
I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. Chief Nigro
There is more than enough evidence that there were firemen around Building 7 to "Pull" from the area.
We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didnt want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnt even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnt know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 oclock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden
What part of this is difficult for the people who purport to be scholars? While my grammar is admittedly poor, the conspiracy theorists reading comprehension seems to be worse. Or is it? I think they're hoping everyone else has poor reading comprehension. For those who are reading comprehensionally challenged let me clear this up for you.
The firemen started search and rescue operations for people who may have been trapped or hurt in Building 7. By 2:00PM they knew the building was going to collapse and PULLED them away. These are the firemen saying this. Not me, not Bush, but the firemen.
What about just listening? Do the conspiracy theorists know how to listen?
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Do they really think the immediate area around the building was vacant with not a soul for blocks? Of course they don't. They pounce on any and all quotes which have the slightest possibility of being taken as a contradiction. This is the theme which runs throughout the so called truth movement.
Here is evidence they had rescue operations IN Building 7:
We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
yes dear!"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard BanaciskiUpdate:
Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
the NIST report damge played no significant role in the collapse
NIST determined damage was not a significant factor in the collapse
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
NIST determined the atrium played no role in the collapse
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.really could you provide a link to this in the nist report ?
No ?.....of course you cant
Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials and in interpreting the results came from a large number of individuals and organizations, including The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its contractors and consultants; Silverstein Properties and its contractors and consultants; the City of New York and its departments; the manufacturers and fabricators of the building components; the companies that insured the WTC towers; the building tenants; the aircraft manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including survivors and family members; and the media.
About the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation
Update:
Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
danielnigro - 911guide
In pure conspiracy theorist form, the second paragraph on this page has been taken out of context. Yes, building 7 fires were unfought but that doesn't mean there wasn't firemen on the scene, does it? Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out.
I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. Chief Nigro
There is more than enough evidence that there were firemen around Building 7 to "Pull" from the area.
We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didnt want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnt even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnt know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 oclock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden
What part of this is difficult for the people who purport to be scholars? While my grammar is admittedly poor, the conspiracy theorists reading comprehension seems to be worse. Or is it? I think they're hoping everyone else has poor reading comprehension. For those who are reading comprehensionally challenged let me clear this up for you.
The firemen started search and rescue operations for people who may have been trapped or hurt in Building 7. By 2:00PM they knew the building was going to collapse and PULLED them away. These are the firemen saying this. Not me, not Bush, but the firemen.
What about just listening? Do the conspiracy theorists know how to listen?
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Do they really think the immediate area around the building was vacant with not a soul for blocks? Of course they don't. They pounce on any and all quotes which have the slightest possibility of being taken as a contradiction. This is the theme which runs throughout the so called truth movement.
Here is evidence they had rescue operations IN Building 7:
We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
no where in this drivel is there a statement from NIST saying the building was expected to fall or it was leaning or it had been surveyed
Don't forget the FDNY had many that heard, and experienced explosions, that were denied to have been heard or existed by NIST. They were present at the scene too."In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled
on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.
Source: FEMA report on WTC 4, 5, and 6, page 15. Redirecting..."
Fire will INDEED weaken steel. That is why steel frame structures are "fire proofed".
Those buildings were left standing. They resembled what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 did not. I have posted photos of these buildngs and others like the Murrah Building which clearly show WTC 7 was very unusual to say the least. Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical rapid collapse.
That was not the point of that picture. The point was to argue the claim that "normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel". The picture shows that it DOES damage steel.
As for comparing WTC 7 to the Murrah building...............why? They were constructed completely different and damage done to them was completely different. I'm not sure what your comparison is supposed to point out.
As for the collapse of WTC 7, it was FAR from symmetrical. The east penthouse fell into the building far ahead of the exterior walls. So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
And don't forget, that the FDNY had many people survey that building in the hours before it fell. It was no surprise to them when it fell. They had been expecting it all afternoon.
Please post where this is so historically consistent, due to fire?So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
well that's eots!To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials and in interpreting the results came from a large number of individuals and organizations, including The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its contractors and consultants; Silverstein Properties and its contractors and consultants; the City of New York and its departments; the manufacturers and fabricators of the building components; the companies that insured the WTC towers; the building tenants; the aircraft manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including survivors and family members; and the media.
About the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation
Update:
Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
danielnigro - 911guide
In pure conspiracy theorist form, the second paragraph on this page has been taken out of context. Yes, building 7 fires were unfought but that doesn't mean there wasn't firemen on the scene, does it? Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out.
I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. Chief Nigro
There is more than enough evidence that there were firemen around Building 7 to "Pull" from the area.
We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didnt want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnt even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnt know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 oclock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden
What part of this is difficult for the people who purport to be scholars? While my grammar is admittedly poor, the conspiracy theorists reading comprehension seems to be worse. Or is it? I think they're hoping everyone else has poor reading comprehension. For those who are reading comprehensionally challenged let me clear this up for you.
The firemen started search and rescue operations for people who may have been trapped or hurt in Building 7. By 2:00PM they knew the building was going to collapse and PULLED them away. These are the firemen saying this. Not me, not Bush, but the firemen.
What about just listening? Do the conspiracy theorists know how to listen?
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Do they really think the immediate area around the building was vacant with not a soul for blocks? Of course they don't. They pounce on any and all quotes which have the slightest possibility of being taken as a contradiction. This is the theme which runs throughout the so called truth movement.
Here is evidence they had rescue operations IN Building 7:
We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
no where in this drivel is there a statement from NIST saying the building was expected to fall or it was leaning or it had been surveyed
You do realize "NIST" was not on the scene on Sept. 11th? The FDNY was. The "drivel", as you call it, are the statements of the firefighters ON the scene. They were pulling back because they felt the building was not safe. They observed the damage to the building and made the call to get away from it. Which is a reasonable call to make.
NIST was not tasked with reporting what the firemen said and thought. NIST was tasked with reporting on how the buildings performed and how they collapsed. The FDNY's information helped NIST in determining the damage to the building prior to collapse. So having the attitude that "if NIST didn't report it, then it didn't happen" is a bit juvenile.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTHNBKjMBU]Merrie Melodies & Looney Tunes - Opening themes. - YouTube[/ame]Don't forget the FDNY had many that heard, and experienced explosions, that were denied to have been heard or existed by NIST. They were present at the scene too.Those buildings were left standing. They resembled what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 did not. I have posted photos of these buildngs and others like the Murrah Building which clearly show WTC 7 was very unusual to say the least. Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical rapid collapse.
That was not the point of that picture. The point was to argue the claim that "normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel". The picture shows that it DOES damage steel.
As for comparing WTC 7 to the Murrah building...............why? They were constructed completely different and damage done to them was completely different. I'm not sure what your comparison is supposed to point out.
As for the collapse of WTC 7, it was FAR from symmetrical. The east penthouse fell into the building far ahead of the exterior walls. So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
And don't forget, that the FDNY had many people survey that building in the hours before it fell. It was no surprise to them when it fell. They had been expecting it all afternoon.
Please post where this is so historically consistent, due to fire?So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
Fire attacks steel, and then the steel dissipates throughout the building, meaning that if by chance the load bearing steel supports fail, it would fail towards the weakest points first, causing a very uneven collapse, not the straight down demolition we all have seen.
Your comments are indicative of someone that has not studied in detail just how steel reacts to fire, nor how the NIST testing failed to prove what you and they are claiming indeed happened.
NIST has only a theory, a weak and improbable one at that, that does not fit with the observed results, and as a government agency needed a narrative that corresponded with the governments.
Planes, jet fuel, fires, but leave out much important, relevant facts, and even witnesses. Barry Jennings is first that comes to mind.
If NIST is so sure about its hypothesis then why wont they allow independent study of their computer model data for replication purposes? Why deny 2.25 secs. of freefall.
Why did they deny the shear studs, then change the story again?
Why did they change the floors the fires were on and their temps?
Because they were caught red handed lying, and these facts were pointed out to them.
But NIST being the top dog with top people doing the study had to be
checked on these things, and made to acknowledge real facts.
They tried to lie and were caught, and can not be trusted.
How the hell can anybody not expect to see the facade distort while all this internal collapsing was taking place?
Was the outside of the building NOT attached to the rest of the internal parts?
Why was the lobby destroyed prior to the collapse of the tower that
allegedly caused damage to WTC 7?
The penthouse is proof that the internal structure was taken out like would occur in a CD, NOT BY RANDOM FIRES.
Fire can not by its very nature remove all the support at the precise time to cause a straight down collapse for the first 2.25 seconds unless it stays put in one place and achieves the required temps, which NIST has no proof that it did, and if it did it would have collapsed to that side first in a staggered manner.
Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since theyre built from steel that doesnt melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
To understand this, one must familiarize themselves with the nature of fire, and its effect on steel, and the conservation of energy and momentum as well.
The assumption of constant velocity of the falling mass ignores the immediate deceleration which would be felt by the falling mass, unless the falling mass had no resistance, which of course NIST said there was.
So why did the buildings fall so fast, and just short of the time it would take to drop a billiard ball from the tops?
Reply to NIST
Check out the Documentary '911: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out'. These people are far from being "Crazy Twoofers" and wearing "Tin Foil Hats."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ]9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res. - YouTube[/ame]
Check out the Documentary '911: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out'. These people are far from being "Crazy Twoofers" and wearing "Tin Foil Hats."
I love farce!Check out the Documentary '911: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out'. These people are far from being "Crazy Twoofers" and wearing "Tin Foil Hats."
Cool,you posted it. Now watch it. You're almost there. Enjoy.
I love farce!
Cool,you posted it. Now watch it. You're almost there. Enjoy.
