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

reply to post by ULTIMA1


It's already been done. The event was carried live and CT'ers were present in the crowd (and asked questions).

Whether or not the questions were valid (lets just assume they were) they - truly Ultima - came off sounding.......loony.

The first time in the history of man that a fire has NOT ONLY caused a building made of STEEL and CONCRETE to collapse, but caused it to collapse on its own footprint.

Where did I put those waders...I'm gonna need them. The **** is getting a little deep.

I DEMAND that everyone in this thread post their credentials and qualifications regarding architecture and building collapse. Everyone here seems to act like they are experts, refuting the actual experts. Why? You don't trust the government, so you don't trust their findings. You already "know" what happened, so any other explanation must be false. The only evidence you have is the same evidence millions of people saw live on television. That's it. So, tell me why I should believe you over the official report.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Read the report and tell me what they got wrong. I will write to them myself telling them where they are in error.

How are we to refute guess work?

How are we to prove them wrong with evidence supplied to us by them?

Plus, I've already shown with the leaked architectural drawings they were wrong with their guess work of the fireproofing for the towers.

I mean, I could guess that the whole building was supported by one single column. That column failed and brought down the building. Prove me wrong.

See how "easy" it is?

reply to post by elderban


Just a counter-point (or two):

1. Because it's never happened before precludes it from ever happening?
   
2. It's also the first time two 110 ton airliners crashed into WTC 1 & 2
   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Whether or not the questions were valid (lets just assume they were) they - truly Ultima - came off sounding.......loony.

Well i am sure the media had a lot to do with the way the questions came off.

Actaully though i am not talking about questions. I am talking about thier own report stating they failed to recover any steel.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I wonder how they respond when i challenge the report on the fact that their own reports state they failed to recover any steel for testing?

It should be funny to hear them respond to that.

NIST failed to recover the steel?

I am sooo sure they will be responding to you. I am sure this team of experts are really threatened by the envelope licker in the NSA mail room.

reply to post by Griff


You read the 114 pages already? Sweet Jesus you're good!

Griff... i am asking you... with the material that is available... is the hypothisis probable. If it is not, please show me how and why.

Thats all

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
NIST failed to recover the steel?

Well try reading their own report that states they did not recover any steel for testing.

wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

Originally posted by MasterRegal
I DEMAND that everyone in this thread post their credentials and qualifications regarding architecture and building collapse.

Professional Engineer in Civil Engineering.

Structural engineer for over 5 years now.

Geotechnical (soils/foundations) engineer for over 7 years.

Have worked on MANY construction sites/buildings.

Enough for you? Or do you want my PE number?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I understand what you're saying but this was an audio stream. The media-at-large had nothing to do with the presentation. It was a (fairly) short question and answer session.

The 9-11 CT'ers were obnoxious. Really, forget the nature of the questions. Their manner was confrontational and did a real disservice to those on your side.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

It's also the first time two 110 ton airliners crashed into WTC 1 & 2

This has what to do with WTC 7? Sorry mods, I can't avoid the one-line post on this one.

Originally posted by MasterRegal
I DEMAND that everyone in this thread post their credentials and qualifications regarding architecture and building collapse. Everyone here seems to act like they are experts, refuting the actual experts. Why? You don't trust the government, so you don't trust their findings. You already "know" what happened, so any other explanation must be false. The only evidence you have is the same evidence millions of people saw live on television. That's it. So, tell me why I should believe you over the official report.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist working at NASA to point out what a space shuttle is.

I listen to both sides and try to make an informed decision from that. The problem with the official story is that it doesn't make any sense, while the controlled demolition explanation makes perfect sense.

Also, it was 9/11 that made me not trust the government. I served in the military, thought I was doing the right thing and all that kind of stuff. Come from a very republican family etc. I couldn't wait to bomb Afghanistan after 9/11.

9/11 made me question many other things. And not just dealing with government. I was actually stunned for quite awhile and in denial. I personally feel it was a wake up call and while bad/wrong, on a deeper level is much more positive. Lets face it, if it hadn't have happened I'd still be a fool.

However, do you believe that possibly you and others may believe the official story simply because you do trust the government. In which case I have to ask - what is the fundamental difference? In either case neither is using their brain to come to an informed opinion.

reply to post by MasterRegal


Absolutely no engineering qualifications. Zero, zilch, nada.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
I understand what you're saying but this was an audio stream. The media-at-large had nothing to do with the presentation.

Oh i am sure someone had a hand in the presentation.

I know the media cannot stand anyone who questions the status quo(specailly 9/11), and loves to make people look bad.

reply to post by Griff


Excellent.

Now let me show you something.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Notice, you could actually SEE the explosions and HEAR the explosions. Yet, on 9/11, we never heard any explosions or saw any explosions with the exception of the initial impact of the airplanes. This alone is proof the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were NOT controlled demolitions. I have absolutely no qualifications in this field, but I have seen enough controlled demolitions to know the WTC was not a controlled demolition. The only characteristic they share is a vertical collapse. That is it.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Griff... i am asking you... with the material that is available... is the hypothisis probable. If it is not, please show me how and why.

Of the material presented BY NIST, yes it's possible.

Let me ask. If I came up with a report that only showed evidence that supports my hypothesis and refuse to release said evidence along with all other evidence, would you take me seriously?

Then why do you take NIST seriously?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well considering NIST was not invovled in the investigation until 8/21/02...i doubt there was much steel left at the site:

wtc.nist.gov...

Page 27

reply to post by Griff


You're aware that the crash of the airliners into WTC1 & 2 resulted in massive damage to WTC7?

As in that never happened before. As in that resulted in subsequent collateral damage not seen before.

As in had not happened before. But, of course, you knew that. Are you interested in semantic gymnastics, or discussion?

The point is: because "it" hasn't happened before does not preclude it from ever happening. Because "it's" the first time, does not invalidate what happened on it's face.

Come on man. If you want to deal with me this way, I will be more than happy to return the favor. However, we aren't going to move the discussion forward.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by Griff


i understand your point. WTC-7 ...what are they not releasing? I have only skimmed through a few pages so far.