August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

Um i belive it takes 2730 degrees to start to melt steel I could be wrong. I have been following the post and what I see Is people that are trying there hardest to prove lies like the NIST report does. It might just be me but some if not all the people that belive in the NIST reports are not very smart or they have their head up ther dairy air?

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Buddyweiser]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt


Read the report, watch the computer model and the explanations that come with it.

Stop the BS with building a replica and burning it down.

???
The computer model doesn't look like what happened at all!

First there is the left side falling inside. I can't see it in the live footages.

Second, the video is very short, but it looks to me that the tower start a spin in the last seconds! Anyone can confirm?
I am very curious to look at the whole simulation. But I don't hold my breath for that release


EDIT: I just saw mirageofdeceit's post asking the same thing (and in a better way) a few posts above mine.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by TheTilde]

reply to post by tezzajw


Step up then tezz... what do you got? What errors were made?

Originally posted by TheTilde

The computer model doesn't look like what happened at all!

First there is the left side falling inside. I can't see it in the live footages.

Second, the video is very short, but it looks to me that the tower start a spin in the last seconds! Anyone can confirm?

You have never seen the Penthouse collapse because 99% of truther videos edit it out.

The computer shows the internal failures of the structure.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Dingleberry.... I will not respond to pathetic attempts of people trying to implicate a building owner of mass murder. This has been rehashed hundreds of times on this forum alone. This thread is to discuss the NIST report pertaining to WTC7.

Since no one died in WTC 7, how does Larry get implicated in mass murder by pulling his building? After all, there was such loss of life, the smartest thing to do would be to "pull it" before it collapsed a few NYC blocks. Correct?

Just like shooting down 93 would have been the smartest thing under the circumstances.

Are government agencies so used to lying that it just becomes second nature to them? Even though most people would understand that hard decisions had to be made?

reply to post by Griff


Griff,

you're smarter than that. this is the last time I am responding to Silverstien bull sh*t. Any other attempts to derail this NIST report on WTC-7 thread with garbage like this will get reported. The mods have already stepped in once. This thread is several pages already with the clip from a 2002 PBS documentary that has been rehashed too many times.

If Silverstein was involved in the destruction of his building, he would have to have been part of the massive cover up. Unless you were to say he ordered the building to be destroyed because of the fires that were going on. Griff, you know as well as I do that you don't run into a burning building with explosives, thermite...or whatever to demolish it.

So, you would have to assuume that he was invovled in the planning of demolishing his building. This means forknowledge of a plane hitting the WTC- that would lead to the collapse, that would lead to the fires in his building that lead to it's demise.

You want to further this Silverstein debate...hop on one of the hundered threads in here that deal with it.

Thank you

-TY-

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by tezzajw

 

Step up then tezz... what do you got? What errors were made?

Error number 1 occurs in Disclaimer 4. NIST admits that it pretty much has no way to verify how the building was constructed, nor how it might have been modified. All subsequent calculations are therefore baseless, as they're guesswork.

Error number 2 occurs in the Dedication. NIST states that "for millions of others, the continuing threat of terrorist attacks affects how we go about our daily lives." That's BS. NIST is using this report to push a political agenda of fear, rather than being objectively neutral. They're fear-mongering.

Error number 3. NIST claims that aircraft AA11 and UA175 impacted WTC1&2. Yet, those alleged aircraft have never been positively identified. NIST ASSUMES that those two Boeing 767s were used, without conclusive proof of this.

Error number 4. Page 49/115, NIST estimates a fuel load of 32 kg/m^3 (a volume), yet it then converts this number into 6.4 lb/ft^2 (an area). NIST has fundamentally failed to edit its own report and has made a stupid error in the units used. Was the estimate a volume estimate, or an area estimate? Piss poor editing.

Do you know what the word 'estimate' means? It means that they really don't have a clue how much fuel was in the building, so they're just guessing... Think about it.

Error number 5. Page 54/115. NIST describes that they basically had no idea what the fires were doing, as the observations were based on images of exterior faces. They have little indication of the fires beyond the exterior walls. THEY GUESSED. One paragraph uses the words 'most likely', 'presumably' and 'likely' in only four sentences. THEY GUESSED.

Error number 6. Page 70/115. The subsystems analysis included ... both under gravity and fire loads. Huh? Since when does fire provide a load? Wow...

Error number 7. 'Modifications were made to reduce the model size and complexity and to enhance computational performance, but without adversely affecting the accuracy of the results.' In other words, by fudging the model, they affected the results.

I've only quickly scanned it, there's no point reading much more.

Consider this:
NIST admit that they did not test steel.
NIST admit that they could not verify the construction.
NIST admit that they can't really say what the fires did.
NIST admit that they guess how much fuel there was for the fires.
NIST admit that they tweak variables in their computer program with some results (not adversely) affected.
NIST made obvious editing errors in this report.
NIST used the words 'Probable', 'Hypothesis', 'likely' and 'most likely' so many times, that they're not prepared to state anything as being definitive or authorative. The best that they can do is estimate, as there is NO EVIDENCE to prove that WTC 7 fell, as they claimed it did.

It boils down to this, ThroatYogurt, their guess is as good as anyone else's. They spent seven years writing this garbage - why? It's made them look more foolish than if they never released the report at all.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by tezzajw]

If the collapse of the twin towers led to debris setting #7 on fire, then howcome it didn't set any other buildings around it on fire, just #7... its so obvious it was controlled demo...

Hey biggest kid. You completely ignored the fact that NIST own reports state they failed to recover any steel for testing.

So please ask then how they can do a proper report that can be believed.

Reason was had to clear the debris away from Verizon Building next to
WTC 7 - were afraid debris piled up against it would cause building to
collapse. Verizon provided telcom service to all of southern tip of
Manhattan including Wall Street stock exchanges so preserving it
was high priority. So much for that WTC collapsed in "footprint"

The Verizon Building has five sub-basement levels, which house communications equipment. The building remained in use by Verizon as a main telecommunications switching center in Lower Manhattan, handling approximately 200,000 phone lines and 3.6 million data circuits prior to 9/11.[8]

The building's older design utilizes thick masonry and gives the building added strength, which helped the building withstand the attacks and remain structurally sound. The building has thick, heavy masonry in the infill exterior walls, which encloses the building's steel frame. Brick, cinder, concrete and other masonry materials encase interior steel columns, beams, girders and other structural elements. The masonry allowed the structure to absorb much of the energy from debris hitting the building.[10] Nonetheless, the building had extensive damage to its east and south facades.[1] Underground cable vaults belonging to Verizon, along with other underground utility infrastructure were also heavily damaged from water and debris.[3][11]

en.wikipedia.org...

On 9/11, all that changed. Because of its close proximity and the devastating nature of the collapse of World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2, the south face of 140 West Street was extensively damaged, with entire column bays destroyed as high as the 13th story. To the east, a mere 60 feet away, stood the 47-story 7 World Trade Center. When 7 WTC collapsed later that same day, it fell to the west, causing even more structural damage to the eastern portions of the first 9 floors housing Verizon’s most critical equipment. The burning rubble from its remains piled 7 stories high against and through the east facade. While the sturdy Verizon building remained standing, extreme damage was suffered in the surrounding streets by the collapsed steel and concrete, severely damaging Verizon’s underground cable vaults and severing incoming Con Edison feeders, DC power and steam service, domestic water mains, and sanitary sewage piping. Clearly, the project would become multi-phased: first, as a disaster-recovery rebuild; then as a historic preservation and modernization to turn this celebrated building into a 21st-century office building within a historic shell.

www.buildings.com...

Damage to Verizon inflicted by WTC 7 collapse



en.wikipedia.org...:Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

Originally posted by tezzajw
Error number 1

The error I'm afraid was mine asking a no-planer for some facts.

Sorry Tezz... I'll refrain from that from now on.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by tezzajw
Error number 1

The error I'm afraid was mine asking a no-planer for some facts.

Sorry Tezz... I'll refrain from that from now on.

Great reply, ThroatYogurt!

Your lack of a detailed response to the errors that I pointed is duly noted!

So tell me a secret, is your guess why WTC7 fell as good as what NIST's is?

I'd rather be a 'no-planer' than a no-brainer. Until you can forensically prove the identity of the alleged planes that allegedly impacted WTC1&2, then like NIST, you're assuming that the damage was caused by the Boeing 767s, AA11 and UA175.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by tezzajw]

If the collapse of the twin towers led to debris setting #7 on fire, then howcome it didn't set any other buildings around it on fire, just #7... its so obvious it was controlled demo...

Verizon building was made of heavy concrete masonary

The building's older design utilizes thick masonry and gives the building added strength, which helped the building withstand the attacks and remain structurally sound. The building has thick, heavy masonry in the infill exterior walls, which encloses the building's steel frame. Brick, cinder, concrete and other masonry materials encase interior steel columns, beams, girders and other structural elements. The masonry allowed the structure to absorb much of the energy from debris hitting the building.[10] Nonetheless, the building had extensive damage to its east and south facades.[1] Underground cable vaults belonging to Verizon, along with other underground utility infrastructure were also heavily damaged from water and debris.[3][11]

When 7 WTC collapsed later that same day, it fell to the west, causing even more structural damage to the eastern portions of the first 9 floors housing Verizon’s most critical equipment. The burning rubble from its remains piled 7 stories high against and through the east facade. While the sturdy Verizon building remained standing, extreme damage was suffered in the surrounding streets by the collapsed steel and concrete, severely damaging Verizon’s underground cable vaults and severing incoming Con Edison feeders, DC power and steam service, domestic water mains, and sanitary sewage piping.

reply to post by tezzajw



I suggest you go to one of the hologram threads and join Killtown. More love over there for your kind.

For those that are interested:

The video of yesterday's press briefing will be available at 1:00pm here:


event.on24.com... =18846718

CHANGED TO 3PM...

What a surprise

[edit on 22-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

One question, are the companies/people who built and designed these building still doing it? Where were they trained? How could anyone screw up a building project this bad? they not only built inferior buildings, but they even stated that they could withstand a direct hit from a comercial jet. Shouldn't the universities that educated these folks and the building inspectors, and all the building inspectors in New York that have checked out the WTC buildings get fired? This is a mistake of global proportions. When the people we trust to keep us safe from poor construction ignore the obvious flaws these buildings must have had, it is a criminal offence.
How many other building did these folks build? My god, if a trash can caught fire in a bathroom, the entire thing could "thermally expand" and fall killing millions of innocent civillians. I want Action!

Or maybe the buildings were built just fine and this crazy theory is about as good as the hologram theory.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by tezzajw

 

I suggest you go to one of the hologram threads and join Killtown. More love over there for your kind.

So, I gave you a list of errors and now you want me to leave. Typical, I guess. You have no answers to what I typed, so you want me to leave.

The NIST report on WTC7 is anything BUT definitive. It's full of conjecture, possibilities and variable tweaking, until they get the result that they want.

Be careful how you label 'my kind' as you don't want to be warned for personal attacks. You know the Moderators are right on top of this thread.

reply to post by network dude


Network Dude...

The buildings were designed to New York City code at that time. It was also built per NYC code.

Bolded part was not confirmed. Only the design was confirmed to beto code. This is the reason for the edit. Sorry


[edit on 22-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

I have read this thread from the beginning and it really becomes clear that 'Throat Yoghurt' is a NIST employee. And one with a bad attitude and arrogant stance.

There is plenty of evidence of non-evidence that tears the NIST report apart. Plenty of people have pointed out that NIST have guessed all the calculations to make plain office fires deadly enough to fell a sky scraper and started out with a pre-conceived outcome namely how do we explain this one without looking at the obvious use of thermate explosives.

Do us all a favour Throat Yoghurt and try to provide real evidence from NIST instead of ignoring the laws of nature. As it is NIST that has FAILED. A buildin fell and they cant explain it because they are looking at unbelievable alternatives to the explosives theory which is the ONLY explanation that fits ALL the evidence.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by network dude

 

Network Dude...

The buildings were designed to New York City code at that time. It was also built per NYC code.

How do you know how it was built? NIST couldn't verify the construction, so how do you manage to verify that it was constructed to meet any codes?