Engineers what is your take on NIST report on WTC7?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs

All the significant bangs were recorded in the seismographs.

2 plane impacts.

2 building collapses.

3 gas explosions.

Do you have evidence of any other bangs?

Why are they not recorded the seismographs?

Just because noises are not captured that day, don't means there wasn't any big bangs. Eyewitnesses exiting the building, and emergency workers do claim they heard loud bangs and explosions near the WTC towers. There is plenty of video of that online.

Either way i think the Molten steel aspect of this is more important. There is literally 30+ eyewitnesses to this and NIST on video clearly states there was not 1 person at the wreckage sites that said they saw Molten steel. This is false this a lie.

a reply to: Jacobu12

To date, there is no proof that molten metals...if there were actually any there....were anything but copper, aluminum, nickel and zinc. None. And absolutely no proof that there was ever molten steel. But beside that, what would molten steel represent? A hot fire that is it. And to be honest, molten metals the day after...rule out thermite as well. A thermite reaction happens...and is done. It does not continue for hours on end....unless there is a consistent supply of thermite to continue the reaction.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Yet a complex and sophisticated implosion system, wiring, and detonators, survived raging fires and building damage to perfectly carry out the first implosion of a structural steel building over 500 feet tall?

I can only give you a star but I never thought of that aspect, thank you so much for the insightful thought

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

A thermite reaction happens...and is done. It does not continue for hours on end..

Not truther thermite.
It burns fast and slow.
Fast enough to burn through steel beams in a couple seconds.
Then it slows down and burns for months.
I think you can buy it from Acme Inc.
I'll ask Wile E when I see him.

Wow, an old thread from 2008.

I'm no engineer, but it seems Gage has 2000+ engineers who question the NIST story. As a layman, that's good enough for me. Common Sense says the odds of 3 buildings going down at free fall rates on the same day, in the same city block, when it's never happened ever before, are infinitesimal. It was an inside job all the way, with 15 years worth of cover-up

a reply to: Salander

I am still waiting for a truther to point another incident in history where terrorists flew airliners into skyscrapers. You would think that after 16 years SOMEONE would have either found another such attack or they would have quit saying idiotic stuff like "Common Sense says the odds of 3 buildings going down at free fall rates on the same day, in the same city block, when it's never happened ever before, are infinitesimal."

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

They have changed their stance to nearly free fall speed. But it is an example how the truth movement started on a false premise. I guess it's an example showing that debunkers are needed to keep the truth movement in line?

originally posted by: Salander
Wow, an old thread from 2008.

I'm no engineer, but it seems Gage has 2000+ engineers who question the NIST story. As a layman, that's good enough for me. Common Sense says the odds of 3 buildings going down at free fall rates on the same day, in the same city block, when it's never happened ever before, are infinitesimal. It was an inside job all the way, with 15 years worth of cover-up

False logic. It's Infinitesimal that any object would randomly be landed on by a man made object in our solar system. Until a group of individuals work to land a probe on to a specific target. Then I think the odds change for that target. Hence the words work and target?

a reply to: Salander

And how many buildings were destroyed at the WTC?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

I am still waiting for a truther to point another incident in history where terrorists flew airliners into skyscrapers. You would think that after 16 years SOMEONE would have either found another such attack or they would have quit saying idiotic stuff like "Common Sense says the odds of 3 buildings going down at free fall rates on the same day, in the same city block, when it's never happened ever before, are infinitesimal."

And what does "free fall rates" mean anyway. Seems like just another catchphrase parroted by truthers (or whatever they want to call themselves) without any consideration of what it actually means. Like "into its own footprint".

You just have to watch any video of the towers collapsing to see debris falling faster than the collapse front and well outside what I would consider to be the building's "footprint"

a reply to: mrthumpy

I remember when I first started participating in the 9/11 forums. I thought everone one would be respectful and was seeking the absolute truth. Then to be called intellectual deficient because I did not buy into the towers built to maximize empty space should have fell over like a cut tree?

Now that is been shown the towers deposited material beyond their own footprints, the truth movement claim is the only possible explanation is lateral ejection by demolitions. Not sure what that has to do with fizzle no flash explosives. While ignoring the simple physics in what happens when 1000 ton chunk of building bumps into a 60 ton chuck of building during a collapse of a building weighing 500,000 tons. Simple physics displayed by a Newton's cradle or a metal ball bouncing off concrete?

a reply to: mrthumpy


Free fall rate of collapse means that a building collapses to the ground, the top of the building reaches the ground, just as quickly as an object dropped from the top of the building would reach the ground.

In the case of the WTC buildings, it was very near to free fall rates, but not exactly. Part of the reason for that is because it was hard to tell exactly when the top part reached the ground because there was a fantastic pyroclastic flow generating all that dust that obscured visibility, a sure sign that burning office furnishings did not cause the damage and collapse.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy


Free fall rate of collapse means that a building collapses to the ground, the top of the building reaches the ground, just as quickly as an object dropped from the top of the building would reach the ground.

In the case of the WTC buildings, it was very near to free fall rates, but not exactly. Part of the reason for that is because it was hard to tell exactly when the top part reached the ground because there was a fantastic pyroclastic flow generating all that dust that obscured visibility, a sure sign that burning office furnishings did not cause the damage and collapse.

Ah thanks for clearing that up.

So

"3 buildings going down at free fall rates on the same day, in the same city block, when it's never happened ever before."

still hasn't happened. Jolly good

a reply to: mrthumpy

It happened, as they say, "close enough for government work", if you understand the meaning of the term.

Depending upon a number of variables involved with timing issues and visibility, within about 10% for the towers, and even closer for WTC 7.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

It happened, as they say, "close enough for government work", if you understand the meaning of the term.

Depending upon a number of variables involved with timing issues and visibility, within about 10% for the towers, and even closer for WTC 7.

Round here we say nigh enough for pit work.

Glad we can agree that they didn't collapse at "free fall speed". Whatever that is

a reply to: Salander

a sure sign that burning office furnishings did not cause the damage and collapse

Then explain how a simple paper match will make a needle glow orange ?

a reply to: Salander

Nutty 9-11 Physics

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay

www.uwgb.edu...

So according to the seismic record, the first impacts are about ten seconds after the onset of collapse. That's the free-falling debris. Seismic signals continued for 15 more seconds. So it took at least about 25 seconds for the buildings to collapse. The seismic records are probably the best information because the last stages of collapse were obscured by dust, but a time indexed series of video frames on the 9-11 Research site shows the collapse of one tower still in progress after 19 seconds. So the collapse speed was less than half of free-fall speed. Also:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
And the people who like to take "ten seconds" and "essentially in free fall" literally don't seem to care much about paragraphs like this:

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
9-11 troofers are a lot like some Biblical fundamentalists. Anything that they want to believe is to be taken with absolute literalness, and anything that contradicts what they want to believe, they just ignore.

Wonder if the only response will be the works for the government card?