| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Is the NIST WTC7 report out?; wasn't it due out in July? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 30 2008, 04:01 PM (1,261 Views) | |
| Miragememories | Aug 27 2008, 10:49 AM Post #26 |
|
Isn't it interesting that NIST's primary computer models for simulating what happened to WTC7 were based on modeling approaches developed during the creation of the WTC Twin Towers Report? In that 10,000 page explanation, NIST achieved a successful global collapse initiation only when their model was run under worst case scenario conditions (tweaked to create stronger, faster, heavier aircraft impacting structurally weaker towers). NIST explained these collapses as critically dependent on aircraft impact damage, followed 56 minutes later, by a finishing punch from fires causing unmanageable steel expansion due to the complete stripping of original fire proofing. In addition, NIST's theorists believed that, successful total collapse conditions required the overwhelming force of upper sections free-fall dropping onto the intact lower sections and precipitating cascading collapses. So what happened with NIST and WTC7? They basically said structural damage played no part in collapse initiation and that burning office furnishings was the sole cause.  In spite of the collapse initiation requirement that NIST over-tweak 'fire and aircraft impact' damage in the Twin Towers computer model, NIST is betting 'the farm' that fires alone, unfought for over 7 hours, created the same result. Their whole theory, which they now state as fact, is based on the heat from office furnishings fueled fires, concentrating over several floors in the area of column #79, leading to it's failure, and linking to a sequence of irresistible events concluding in WTC7 being reduced to a pile of smoldering ruins. The superficially damaged, smoky south face of WTC7, showed how easy it was for heat to escape.  Column #79 and all the structural steel connecting to it, had fully intact fireproofing.  NIST previously stated a finding that office furnishing fires had 20 minute peaks. Still, NIST has the fire's heat reaching and sustaining sufficient intensity, while concentrating on several floors areas bounding column #79 to cause it's failure on multiple floors. So, while we observed this;  NIST's highly refined computer simulation described this;  and this;  and this;  NIST does acknowledge that a 9 lb. explosive charge could achieve a similar result, but this has been dismissed because they believe no one heard it's "boom" and that column #79's vulnerability was previously unknown. NIST refuses to discuss or acknowledge, alternative, less audible methods of column destruction (thermate/thermite). MM |
 |
 
|
| Andoo Inc. | Aug 27 2008, 11:27 AM Post #27 |
Sir finds a lot
|
Is there a way to find out what dynamic variables they were guessing in order to make the collapse happen in 56 minutes. If we listen to the "there has never been any proof of residue" for the explosion theory, how much evidence would be left over for us to find. Were they even looking for this stuff to begin with. Can we assume that there was an agenda to not look for this kind of evidence? considering the administration was looking for a reason to go into Iraq. Edited by Andoo Inc., Aug 27 2008, 11:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Aug 29 2008, 08:49 AM Post #28 |
|
The question remains; Why not this?  MM |
|
|
|
| Andoo Inc. | Aug 29 2008, 11:09 AM Post #29 |
|
Sir finds a lot
|
Dude I know, I've been in my classes and we've talked about the collapses in structures and masonry, but the only thing brought up was the fireproofing and 1800 degree heat. I've always been in that "why not this" attitude, but again I can't do the calculations yet to find out jack squat, In my head I just imagine that angle causes a non symmetrical collapse as I would imagine one side buckled while the other side would be strained and thus make a pulling action to one side. |
|
|
|
| catbert | Aug 29 2008, 02:45 PM Post #30 |
|
Now, has anyone actually compared the «Alex Jones Leak» to the official report or summary of events? |
|
|
|
| Tim Riches | Aug 29 2008, 05:23 PM Post #31 |
|
That's a very good question. It would be interesting to note any discrepancies and what they may signify if found... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
6:45 AM Dec 7
