| 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! |
| NIST WTC 7 Report Confirms Barry Jennings Story; NIST confirms Barry Jennings Story | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 23 2008, 06:07 PM (491 Views) | |
| swingdangler | Aug 23 2008, 06:07 PM Post #1 |
|
I believe that NIST has done a favor for the Movement. What they have done with their latest report other than fail as an excuse for the global collapse of WTC 7 is confirm the Barry Jennings interview with LC. Barry said a large explosion rocked the building and the floor he was on, left bodies on the floor etc. The landing he is on gives way and he is hanging on for dear life along with a co-worker. Question: According to NIST's WTC 7 report, debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 did not scoop out the building and help contribute to the collapse, nor did the fuel tanks in the sub-levels, what in the name of NIST caused the Barry Jennings event?  Edited by swingdangler, Aug 23 2008, 06:07 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| behind | Aug 25 2008, 07:13 AM Post #2 |
|
What do they say about alleged "south side damage" from the falling debris ? (I have not time to read the report yet) |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Aug 25 2008, 06:16 PM Post #3 |
|
I watched the live webcast. They essentially blame it all on office furnishing's fires. And I do mean it all. Column #79. NIST claims it failed. According to NIST's "mystery solved", the collapse of WTC7 was an unrealized consequence of steel heat expansion.  after 15 hours of the fire below  15 hour fire   Column #79, 33rd floor with camera looking northeast NIST said it could not have been a controlled demolition, because the 9 lb. of explosive required to buckle column # 79 would have been to loud to not have been heard. S. Shyam Sunder, Acting Director, BFRL, NIST who spoke for NIST and presented NIST's findings followed his presentation with a short Q & A with live press, present and online.  Things broke down when one questioner attempted to get Sunder to explain why a non-explosive (thermate/thermite) form of silent column removal could not have been used. Sunder refused to respond. In part of the NIST presentation, Sunder showed a computer animation of the collapse simulation. As per the NIST theory, and it is still a theory, column #79 was predicted to fail as evidenced by the simulation's collapse of the east penthouse. Several seconds later, when global collapse is imminent, the simulation shows the initial rapid failure of the WTC7 northeast face, including a dramatically fracturing roofline, supposedly in response to the predicted failure of column #79. Shortly thereafter, the simulation shows global failure across the whole north face. To my eye, NIST's simulated northeast implosion destruction, occurring before observable global collapse, does not get support from the available video evidence.   Sunder also stated that the WTC7 collapse lacked the symmetry of a controlled demolition and that the asymmetrical part of the collapse being internal, was unobservable. That what the public saw was the collapsing outer shell of the building. That explanation by NIST is used to account for the symmetry of the observed collapse. MM Edited by Miragememories, Aug 26 2008, 01:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| skunkrider | Aug 26 2008, 07:46 AM Post #4 |
|
A little personal story here: I just spoke to a friend of mine. He recently finished his civil engineer studies and is currently doing an internship in Australia. He was never interested in 9/11 or related topics, and also came up with all those strawman-arguments like: 'Too many people would've known, somebody would've become a whistleblower' etc. etc., I'm going to spare you with the obvious tennis-like discussions we had. About one and a half years ago I asked him and others to watch LC 2nd Edition, and I don't know whether he ever did so completely, but when I asked him today about the evidence that was pointing towards 'Inside Job' he suspected that such films and documentaries can be faked. Anyway, I asked him what he has to say about WTC7, and he didn't know what I meant. So I sent him a couple of youtube clips of the building, and explained to him the obvious facts: 47 stories high, around 195 meters, collapsed in about 6-7 seconds, and the explanation of its collapse: fire. He laughed right away, and said that fire cannot cause that, and you wouldn't need to have any degree in any science to see that. He then added that 'normal' fire cannot cause such a collapse unless special incendiary agents were used. I asked what kind of agents he was talking about, and he instantly named thermite. I explained to him that NIST recently officially announced that fire caused the collapse, and that certain central carrying structures were obviously weakened by the fire, and he replied that a normal office fire would've had to burn for days before any considerable effect to the building static would show up. This is when he became interested to know more about what there is to know about 9/11, and he asked me to send him info, sheets and original video records of that day. This is my personal 'Danny Jowenko' experience, even though my friend has no experience in Controlled Demolition whatsoever. You don't have to be marine biologist to know when something smells fishy, period. |
|
|
|
| swingdangler | Aug 26 2008, 08:41 AM Post #5 |
|
That sounds similar to an experience I had with a Purdue Graduate with a degree in constructional engineering. She agreed with the official story of the Twin's collapse, but when viewing WTC 7 collapse, she stated there was something strange about it. I will be updating her today with the latest from NIST. |
|
|
|
| arie | Aug 26 2008, 09:57 AM Post #6 |
|
here's NIST's model of the exterior buckling. Somehow i don't recognize WTC7 in it at all and then they have the nerve to say (p. 595): 
|
|
|
|
| behind | Aug 26 2008, 10:31 AM Post #7 |
|
Yes, they say that the only diffrence the "damage from debris" made, was that exterior columns buckled lower at the building: "In the analysis without debris impact damage, the exterior columns buckled near mid-height of the building, apprximately between floors17 ans 29. In the analysis with debris impact damage, the exterior columns buckled between floors 7-14, due to the influence of the exerior damage near the southwest corner." (chapter 3.5.2. page 40) This is all unbelivenble (imo) In fact it is all hillarious. A fire + column 79. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Aug 26 2008, 02:19 PM Post #8 |
|
This is the closest high elevation view I've been able to capture of the initial WTC7 global collapse.  The Northeast faces of WTC7 shows no dramatic change as it descends as a whole. MM |
|
|
|
| einsteen | Aug 26 2008, 02:59 PM Post #9 |
|
I've never seen a building being demolished with charges fall as cleanly as wtc7 did. It is a ridiculous idea that a single column can lead to the observed collapse because it requires professionals to do it in that way. Also from a physical point of view the amount of energy required to demolish the building is not the energy to cut all those columns but only a fraction of it. I have to read the report first of course, but the above doesn't look like wtc7s collapse and I've seen it 500 times. Wtc7 was a near perfect "crush-up". |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic » |
11:29 PM Dec 7
