Why the NIST report on WTC7 is unscientific and false

Here we have a relatively brief, but hard hitting video on why the NIST report on WTC7 was junk. Heck one look at their collapse model vs. what was actually observed from video records of the event, and you can see that it is BS:



But this isn't the only reason, as this succinct video points out. Good viewing.

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

You can add this to your list also..

And ATS article from that link above from wecomeinpeace..

The above link is updates from the post below shows alot of what NIST said was wrong and false.

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked



[edit on 3/10/2010 by ThichHeaded]

This is where truthers make themselves look really stupid. NIST had over 200 engineers on the WTC 7 report, most of them independent of government.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, some 130,000 strong, concurs with NIST.

But a few guys with you-tube videos know it all !

reply to post by ThichHeaded


Excellent links TH! Thanks.

The debunkers really, really don't like it when we destroy their OS fantasy with real evidence and solid research!

reply to post by Alfie1


No sorry the links I supplied are researched infomation that was run for a while researching all errors in NIST and the original layout to the research that was started if you look below you will see on the So911 site it states this.

the page was set up on 10/19 there were many edits to it from 9/16 so.. I dont know where you get off with a bunch of idiots doing bla bla and de da..

We sit and look at all the evidence on what is given and make sound conclusions on what is wrong.. The link above clearly shows NIST is flat wrong on what they said, unless you have something else to bring to the table to prove otherside.. if not then you have no call stating people are just idiots..

To ATS MODS What is going on trolls out the wazoo anymore here.. back in the day we would get warned and banned for the crap i see today in this forum..

Originally posted by Alfie1
This is where truthers make themselves look really stupid. NIST had over 200 engineers on the WTC 7 report, most of them independent of government.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, some 130,000 strong, concurs with NIST.

Funny, my father works for a major consulting firm who specializes in blast analysis, and design. Their company constantly testifies as expert witnesses in multi-million dollar suits. The owner of the company (who is one of the smartest men I have had the pleasure of meeting, as well as a family friend with degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Physics) has yet to properly explain the collapse of building 7. And believe me, he is trying to debunk the explosive theory, but has not been able torule it out.

Don't be so cockey to think all engineers agree with the OS, I am an engineering student who will be graduating soon, and I find it hard to believe that WTC7 fell from a structure fire.

-E-

P.S. Is the view good from your high horse?

reply to post by ThichHeaded


Also, let us not forget:

WTC 7 "Elevator car blown out of its shaft" says OEM:



Ain't every day a fire will cause an elevator car to be blown out of its shaft. Especially when the building hasn't been hit by a 767.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Ain't every day a fire will cause an elevator car to be blown out of its shaft. Especially when the building hasn't been hit by a 767.

No but a 110 story building falling on it can

Or do you purposely forget that little fact

2 elevator cars on 8th floor were dislodged by the impact - witness report
could see large hole in south face of the building and looking west could see another hole in that side.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Ain't every day a fire will cause an elevator car to be blown out of its shaft. Especially when the building hasn't been hit by a 767.

I guess the part that the firefighters noticed a nice gaping hole in WTC7 after the WTC Tower fell into it was ignored? You remember? The debris that started the fires that burned for 6 hours?

Originally posted by GenRadek
The debris that started the fires that burned for 6 hours?

You're contradicting the NIST report. They said 7 hours.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I apologise, 6-7 hours I meant.