Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out
Comments
-
You can accept or discard anything you want, e.g. you can claim you've studied evidence that the world is round and have rejected it. It's meaningless
You have demonstrated you will accept a theory as the absolute truth, then reject it shortly after for another random theory borrowed off the internet, then reject that and accept another
People who support the actual investigation and science behind don't need to do that, the truth has a habit of being consistent
You can reject all you want just like you said before Saudi Arabia was not involved in 9/11 before and that not looking wrong everyday. Senators are currently pushing legislation in congress to release all the secret kept documents about 9/11. More and more mainstream politicians are waking up that 9/11 official story is a fraud.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »you clearly see the building came down at freefall speed with no resistance.
It was timed by the NIST (I am amazed they even bothered to do that), free-fall speeds weren't recordedThey saw a yellow liquid which means whatever that was above 1000c.
People saw glowing metal, they saw streams of sparks, they potentially saw melted alu with impuritiesNIST never tested for thermite or thermate or nano thermite grade gels known to be tested in 1999 by the US military to find out if this was cause.
Correct, because it would have been inconclusive
"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions."Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
Did they test for evidence of energy weapons? It's amazing they even addressed some of the "demolition" theories in the first place
You still haven't presented a single shred of credible evidence that WTC 7 was blown up
Why make it hard for yourself? I can make up a 911 conspiracy theory in seconds that is much easier to defend than all this nonsense0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Saudi Arabia was not involved in 9/11
15 of the hijackers were from Saudi, so yes they were involved. Those 15 people would have known hundreds of people in Saudi. A third of the people in Saudi Arabia work in the government.
Did other people know of the plot? possibly
Did other government workers know? possibly
Did orders come from the top? nothing substantiated
Context is important0 -
It was timed by the NIST (I am amazed they even bothered to do that), free-fall speeds weren't recorded
People saw glowing metal, they saw streams of sparks, they potentially saw melted alu with impurities
Correct, because it would have been inconclusive
"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions."
Did they test for evidence of energy weapons? It's amazing they even addressed some of the "demolition" theories in the first place
You still haven't presented a single shred of credible evidence that WTC 7 was blown up
Why make it hard for yourself? I can make up a 911 conspiracy theory in seconds that is much easier to defend than all this nonsense
How can I debate you seriously when it well known NIST admitted to a free fall time of 2.25 seconds. Go on whatever skeptic's site you post at and ask them they tell you. Freefall can only occur when there no structural support and it occurs at the same time.
The rest of your post doesn't address anything its whataboutery and nonsense. Testing for explosives and thermite is crucial in a terrorist event. We should never do forensic evidence testing again if that was the case. The people who work in bombs disposal should give up their jobs if there no potential answers to be found.0 -
15 of the hijackers were from Saudi, so yes they were involved. Those 15 people would have known hundreds of people in Saudi. A third of the people in Saudi Arabia work in the government.
Did other people know of the plot? possibly
Did other government workers know? possibly
Did orders come from the top? nothing substantiated
Context is important
There is no possibility. The head FBI agent of 400 members strong task force investigating 9/11 attack admitted publically the 9/11 Commission lied about his evidence and his investigation. In his own words, his said they found plenty of evidence that Saudi diplomats and intelligence spies were meeting the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11. He said the 29 pages were trying to downplay what they found for political reasons at the time. They found money was funnelled through Princess Haifa account to two of Pentagon 9/11 hijackers. This money trail has never been fully investigated their investigation was stonewalled by the White House under Bush.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »How can I debate you seriously when it well known NIST admitted to a free fall time of 2.25 seconds.
Wasn't free fall. 5.4 seconds
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigationFreefall can only occur when there no structural support and it occurs at the same time.
Free fall didn't happenTesting for explosives and thermite is crucial in a terrorist event.
They didn't find any trace of explosives and as mentioned a test for thermite would have been inconclusive because it contains materials naturally found in the building
The NIST investigation was to determine how the building fell. It determined that the building fell due to fire.
There is no other credible theory, except those by conspiracy theorists which include silent explosives, real explosives, energy weapons, etc for which there is no credible evidence
Again, you personally can reject everything.. that's up to you. This debate is not aimed at you.
The actual experts and people who investigated found it fell due to fire. Other investigations and reports have found it fell due to fire. There are no recognised body of experts anywhere in the world who believe it fell otherwise, in fact bodies of experts have come forward and supported the NIST
All we are left with is conspiracy theorists who believe it fell due to... a conspiracy. But they have zero evidence for that. (oh and still waiting for ae911's funded study by Hulsey.. which is mysterious well over due-date)0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »The head FBI agent of 400 members strong task force investigating 9/11 attack admitted publically the 9/11 Commission lied about his evidence and his investigation.
He differed in opinion with them on 2 people. Doesn't mean he believe that the leadership in Saud ordered the attack nor does he believe that WTC 7 was blown up.
You are using his disagreement with the commission to further your own bizarre unconnected randomly changeable theories and notions0 -
Wasn't free fall. 5.4 seconds
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Free fall didn't happen
They didn't find any trace of explosives and as mentioned a test for thermite would have been inconclusive because it contains materials naturally found in the building
The NIST investigation was to determine how the building fell. It determined that the building fell due to fire.
There is no other credible theory, except those by conspiracy theorists which include silent explosives, real explosives, energy weapons, etc for which there is no credible evidence
Again, you personally can reject everything.. that's up to you. This debate is not aimed at you.
The actual experts and people who investigated found it fell due to fire. Other investigations and reports have found it fell due to fire. There are no recognised body of experts anywhere in the world who believe it fell otherwise, in fact bodies of experts have come forward and supported the NIST
All we are left with is conspiracy theorists who believe it fell due to... a conspiracy. But they have zero evidence for that. (oh and still waiting for ae911's funded study by Hulsey.. which is mysterious well over due-date)
Your research is shoddy.
NIST says this
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
They admit freefalling in stage 2 of the collapse.
They never tested for explosives or thermite so how would they know it was present on the steel?0 -
He differed in opinion with them on 2 people. Doesn't mean he believe that the leadership in Saud ordered the attack nor does he believe that WTC 7 was blown up.
You are using his disagreement with the commission to further your own bizarre unconnected randomly changeable theories and notions
His job did not in involve searching for a covert operation involving taken down the towers. His job was to investigate the 19 terrorists. So your saying Saudi Diplomats and Intelligence officers are not part of the establishment in Saudi Arabia? There was never a proper transparent investigation into everything so we don't know how deep the Saudi Arabian government involvement was. He was looking at diplomats and spies who came to America or who were already there supporting the terrorists. That doesn't mean they were not ordered to do this by higher up leadership.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »How can I debate you seriously when it well known NIST admitted to a free fall time of 2.25 seconds.
It's right there on their page. 5.4 seconds.
Everything is incontrovertible truth until you literally drop it minutes later0 -
Advertisement
-
-
It's right there on their page. 5.4 seconds.
Everything is incontrovertible truth until you literally drop it minutes later
Personally, I think NIST messed up listing the threes stages of the collapse in their report. Freefall cannot occur in natural collapse.
Fact they admit stage 2 of the collapse was freefall should be debated more. That literally means for 2.25 seconds the top floors (7 to 15 floors) came down and met no resistance on the way down. This is impossible in a building with structural resistance it defies physics.
They don't explain how does floors and steel columns just were not there on the right side of the building when it fell. So if they weren't there they were removed from the equation blown up.0 -
Is made up of which compounds?
Steel and Iron does not molten and melt at office fire temperatures there no explanation for why their evidence of Iron and Steel molten found. Thermite was used we will never know for sure but something in that building got the fires to burn at temperatures exceeding what we know is possible.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »
Fact they admit stage 2 of the collapse was freefall should be debated more. That literally means for 2.25 seconds the top floors (7 to 15 floors) came down and met no resistance on the way down. This is impossible in a building with structural resistance it defies physics.
There is nothing impossible with how WTC 7 fell, it's not a mystery
The NIST is fairly conclusive. If you were genuinely interested in the physics and technical details of how the building fell you'd be on a structural engineering forum or similar. But you aren't - you're on a conspiracy theory forum. It's the equivalent of someone concerned with vaccines going to an anti-vaxx forum over a medical forum for information0 -
There is nothing impossible with how WTC 7 fell, it's not a mystery
The NIST is fairly conclusive. If you were genuinely interested in the physics and technical details of how the building fell you'd be on a structural engineering forum or similar. But you aren't - you're on a conspiracy theory forum. It's the equivalent of someone concerned with vaccines going to an anti-vaxx forum over a medical forum for information
Yes, it is impossible because free fall cannot occur in a natural collapse. That's why freefall is so relevant. NIST denied Freefall for years and when they found out they were wrong they invented this slow progression collapse model to explain the collapse. They never explained what caused 7 to 15 floors to give way and not be there and slow down the descent of the fall. They still have not corrected their analysis on shear studs which is an important part of their analysis as to the way the beams got knocked off their seats. NIST, in reality, has to no clue what caused the collapse but we know one thing they not test for it explosives or thermite could have brought it down.0 -
Even found NIST own video provided to CBS so we now know a big bang was not added in later by conspiracy theorists. It kind of laughable for NIST to say no loud explosion was heard. This noise was heard blocks away and then the Penthouse came down.
0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »It kind of laughable for NIST to say no loud explosion was heard.
The NIST stated no blast was recorded. They acknowledged the loud bangs which comes with a large building collapsing
The "free fall" thing is conspiracy theorists trying to support their unsupported vague notion that it was a demolition. They don't have any evidence, so they rely on lay-people not understanding their pseudo-science. Remember these same "cranks" immediately suggested it was an "inside job" when a steel-framed building collapsed in Tehran last year
These are people with zero interest in the truth, only conspiracy theories
There are more than a few psychology research articles that indicate "conspiracy theorists" are the type of people who lack critical thinking skills and over-estimate their own intelligence in relation to others, which makes them naturally susceptible to conspiracies and myths. The equivalent of a guy who lives in a basement with access to google who thinks he knows more than a body of qualified investigators/experts who have access to all the evidence and write peer-reviewed reports
Remember when that website Reddit with 10's of thousands of users thought they could catch the Boston bombers? nope they didn't get close and misidentified multiple people. A handful of experts with access to the actual evidence identified the suspects.0 -
The NIST stated no blast was recorded. They acknowledged the loud bangs which comes with a large building collapsing
The "free fall" thing is conspiracy theorists trying to support their unsupported vague notion that it was a demolition. They don't have any evidence, so they rely on lay-people not understanding their pseudo-science. Remember these same "cranks" immediately suggested it was an "inside job" when a steel-framed building collapsed in Tehran last year
These are people with zero interest in the truth, only conspiracy theories
There are more than a few psychology research articles that indicate "conspiracy theorists" are the type of people who lack critical thinking skills and over-estimate their own intelligence in relation to others, which makes them naturally susceptible to conspiracies and myths. The equivalent of a guy who lives in a basement with access to google who thinks he knows more than a body of qualified investigators/experts who have access to all the evidence and write peer-reviewed reports
Remember when that website Reddit with 10's of thousands of users thought they could catch the Boston bombers? nope they didn't get close and misidentified multiple people. A handful of experts with access to the actual evidence identified the suspects.
Don't bring another event in to it, remember what happened when the holocaust was brought up?0 -
The NIST stated no blast was recorded. They acknowledged the loud bangs which comes with a large building collapsing
The "free fall" thing is conspiracy theorists trying to support their unsupported vague notion that it was a demolition. They don't have any evidence, so they rely on lay-people not understanding their pseudo-science. Remember these same "cranks" immediately suggested it was an "inside job" when a steel-framed building collapsed in Tehran last year
These are people with zero interest in the truth, only conspiracy theories
There are more than a few psychology research articles that indicate "conspiracy theorists" are the type of people who lack critical thinking skills and over-estimate their own intelligence in relation to others, which makes them naturally susceptible to conspiracies and myths. The equivalent of a guy who lives in a basement with access to google who thinks he knows more than a body of qualified investigators/experts who have access to all the evidence and write peer-reviewed reports
Remember when that website Reddit with 10's of thousands of users thought they could catch the Boston bombers? nope they didn't get close and misidentified multiple people. A handful of experts with access to the actual evidence identified the suspects.
You have no interest in the truth as your satisfied with the official story. Freefall cannot occur in a building with steel beam connections on every floor preventing that. There no way this can happen you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to know this. The Tehran building collapse did not involve freefall it involved fires taking it down over time and there no evidence that building was designed with the same integrity and toughness of WTC7 if anything the building was likely badly designed for safety.
Freefall is actually evidencing the structural components were taken out just before the collapse. That big bang was heard a second or two before the building Penthouse started to fall this noise is consistent with an explosion inside the building. What you expect to hear when the internal steel cores it being blown inside the building is a loud noise and that was heard.
The fact you ignoring there was no resistance of 2.25 seconds is troubling and kind of shows how much you want to skip over this and blame conspiracy theorists for talking about this. You literally saying Newton physics is irrelevant because NIST said this what happened. I remember reading a person online comment in the past that very similar to the Warren commission magic bullet theory doesn't matter if does not hold up to scientific scrutiny enough people will believe in it for us to get away that explanation.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Freefall cannot occur
So what did occur then exactly..
Don't google and copy-paste Chandler's 2.5 second thing, just give your own version of events0 -
So what did occur then exactly..
Don't google and copy-paste Chandler's 2.5 second thing, just give your own version of events
The explanation has to be the same as his can only work one way there no pick of choices. 2.25 second freefall thing is owned by NIST they claim this happened has nothing to with conspiracy theorists.
Roughly about half of the floors came down with nothing between each floor. Think about that in your head you staying on top floor of a hotel of 47 stories and suddenly floor gives away and the floor goes through empty space all that way to the ground would that make any sense to you logically?
The only way that could happen if there was the removal of the structural components before the collapse that's way that loud bang is significant. You hear the bang, support is removed, then the building starts cascading because the supports are no longer there inside the building to keep it up.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »The explanation has to be the same as his can only work one way there no pick of choices. 2.25 second freefall thing is owned by NIST they claim this happened has nothing to with conspiracy theorists.
The 2.5 second free fall comes from Chandler
The conspiracy theory is that there was free fallThe only way that could happen if there was the removal of the structural components before the collapse that's way that loud bang is significant. You hear the bang, support is removed, then the building starts cascading because the supports are no longer there inside the building to keep it up.
So identical to the NIST collapse then, except you've modified it to include a "loud bang", which you claim is "the demolition blast"
I thought thermite was silent?0 -
The 2.5 second free fall comes from Chandler
The conspiracy theory is that there was free fall
So identical to the NIST collapse then, except you've modified it to include a "loud bang", which you claim is "the demolition blast"
I thought thermite was silent?
Wrong it belongs to NIST I even prove it to you.
Here is the link https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
NIST believes these steel structures were taken out naturally with no real explanation for how this was done. When you admit to freefall your basically admitting to empty space between floors. There no evidence the collapse started on floor 13 and 14 there no video of this is just made up theory end of the day.
I did not modify any loud bang that video belongs to NIST and was given to CBS news that loud bang was heard simple and truthfully.
Professor Harrit and the scientists he worked with believe the found nano thermite in the dust and on the steel. Nano thermite was designed by US military in 1999 to be an explosive an incendiary.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Wrong it belongs to NIST I even prove it to you.
Yes I posted you that link earlier in this thread
Free fall is central to the conspiracy theorists argument, you do realise that right?I did not modify any loud bang that video belongs to NIST and was given to CBS news that loud bang was heard simple and truthfully.
Yup we've been over this. The NIST said there were loud bangs, but no blasts.Nano thermite was designed by US military in 1999 to be an explosive an incendiary.
So there was an explosion or it was silent?0 -
Yes I posted you that link earlier in this thread
Free fall is central to the conspiracy theorists argument, you do realise that right?
Yup we've been over this. The NIST said there were loud bangs, but no blasts.
So there was an explosion or it was silent?
No it not it just one element of it. The truthers were actually the people who called attention to this flaw in NIST analysis and under pressure, they went back to the drawing boarding and finally admitted to 40 per cent freefall in the collapse of WTC7 they could ignore it any longer. But they had to create a new theory to explain this away for people like you so they invented the slow progression in 3 stages with no real explanation to how stage 2 could have occurred in a natural building collapse.
The loud bang could easily be an explosion or blast to say otherwise you be lying. That loud bang was heard a second or two before the Penthouse started collapsing the two events obviously belong to each other.
I don't know where you got the idea thermite is silent when exposed to fire? I already posted a video of standard thermite been used with fire and bang was heard. It very unlikely crude thermite was used. Professor Harrit says it was nano thermite that's more of an explosive that also can increase heat if there is a fire.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »under pressureBut they had to create a new theory to explain this away
For anyone else reading this
A separate investigation in 2002, the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study also asserted the building fell due to fire
NIST asserted the building fell due to fire in an extensive report (draft and final form) that hasn't been contended by any recognised group. It's been subject to peer-review. Experts working for an insurance company (producing a model in Edinburgh) came to the same conclusion
Here are a list of peer reviewed engineering studies related to WTC 7 or related to experts who worked on the WTC 7 investigation (old list, not all links checked, originally posted in this thread)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944
http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459
Apparently the search has turned up no peer-reviewed papers critical of the NIST findings.
Not only that but the findings are endorsed and conspiracy theorists are criticisedThe Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/TechnicalGuides/CommentsonNISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx
The AIA not only explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/letter-aia-president-richard-gage-aia, it explicitly rejected Richard Gage's contrary claims: http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_1.aspx
The ICC has also accepted NIST's conclusions as valid and commenced debate on NIST's recommendations: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx
Stanford's engineering department has also endorsed NIST's conclusions, https://blume.stanford.edu/content/collapse-performance-assessment-steel-framed-buildings-under-fires, and engineers there continue to research based on NIST's findings: https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-engineers-study-911-lessons-how-help-buildings-withstand-threats
And many other prominent structural engineers and building code experts are on record explicitly endorsing NIST's conclusions: http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/080903.asp0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »The loud bang could easily be an explosion or blast
Reposting again:
"Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation"
They literally address their audio recordings0 -
Reposting again:
"Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation"
They literally address their audio recordings
Nonsense when you know already as I provided that statement from their own website they never tested for explosives or thermite. That's just a fact end of story.
Loud bang has clearly resulted in the building collapsing. NIST is incredibiliy dishonest saying no noise was heard you can hear a loud bang on the video i posted. That video was recorded many blocks away from WTC7 and it was so loud it was picked up by audio.
Nano thermite clearly is not dynamite. I don't why people think the building needed weeks to be wired up if that's what they found.
I'm very suspicoius of this statement by Silverstein that someone said they are going to pull the building down. How can fire officers wire up a building in a matter of a few hours? Who told him they were going to be able to bring it down in that time sounds like to me someone knew the building was ready to be primed to be taken down.0 -
Advertisement
-
For anyone else reading this
A separate investigation in 2002, the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study also asserted the building fell due to fire
NIST asserted the building fell due to fire in an extensive report (draft and final form) that hasn't been contended by any recognised group. It's been subject to peer-review. Experts working for an insurance company (producing a model in Edinburgh) came to the same conclusion
Here are a list of peer reviewed engineering studies related to WTC 7 or related to experts who worked on the WTC 7 investigation (old list, not all links checked, originally posted in this thread)
Apparently the search has turned up no peer-reviewed papers critical of the NIST findings.
Not only that but the findings are endorsed and conspiracy theorists are criticised
No because just like NIST Fema is a government institution where the only job was to find the same explanation as they did.That you expected a different result is startling to me how this anyway independent from political influence?
You also posting links to sites that are broken and are not actually talking about agreeing with NIST. Where did you find these links?0
Advertisement