Why The NIST Report on WTC 7 is Unscientific and False

[LA RAM FAN]

Why The NIST Report on WTC 7 is Unscientific and False - YouTube

something the trolls NEVER have an answer for no matter HOW MANY times I post this,they always evade it and act like i never did post this.

1.they cant get around the witness testimony for barry jennings who said he heard explosions go off in the basement of bld 7 in the MORNING time BEFORE the planes struck the towers which shreads to pieces the NIST report that the debris caused from the towers caused bld 7 to collape.how conveinient for the government that Jennings died just a couple days before the NIST report came out.

2.there were other buildings in the area MUCH closer to the towers than bld 7 that had FAR MORE SEVERE DAMAGE TO THEM AND FAR MORE EXTENSIVE FIRES THAN BLD 7 YET "THEY" DID NOT COLLAPSE.

3.the twin towers and bld 7 the only buildings that collapsed that day,were all owned by zionist jew larry siverstein.all the others buildings stood and were nto owned by him.just a bizaare coincidence that the OCTA coindidence theorists swallow hook,line,and sinker.

as always,the agent trolls never have any answers for these facts,as always acting like this post never got posted.like clockwork,never fails.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The best response to Building 7 falling down was from Donald Rumsfeld:

"Building 7, what's is that? I have no idea, I've never heard that".

 

[numan]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The final NIST report about WTC 7 collapse came out in November 2008.

These guys gave their opinions in 2006!!!!

OMG....thanks for doing my work for me.

NIST released its first report in oct of 2005 chump...

NIST didn't release its final report on WTC 7 until 2008, chump.

The NIST reports made no sense in 2005 OR in 2008.

.

 

[Gardener]

as always, the agent trolls never have any answers for these facts,as always acting like this post never got posted.like clockwork,never fails.

Like a typical Truther you think anyone who questions the insanity of 9-11 Truth is an "agent".

Ive been dealing with you guys since 2006 and you never change.

paraniod, delusional, and ignorant.

i feel very sorry for you.

 

[numan]

So we have unknown numbers of people from unknown agencies or organizations covertly bringing in craptons of explosives, placing them in such a way that nobody at any point gets any the wiser...

This a very common red herring used by trolls who are servicing an evil government.

It is not my place or anyone else's place to explain every detail of plans of satanic government cabals who expend all their wiles to keep their black operations secret.

The fires in Trade Center 7 were insufficient to bring down the building. The damage to the building by falling debris was minor. Even the whitewash by the NIST does not dare to suggest otherwise.

If these two factors could not explain the collapse, then exactly how the cabal worked its evil deed is irrelevant. All demands for exact explanations are simply sinister attempts to evade the glaring facts.

Shame on the trolls for their irrational demands!!

.

 

[daws101]

Oh to live in the bizarre paranoid conspiracy world where truth consists of whatever youtube videos you can dig up to regurgitate.

So you Actually believe that these top level engineers and veterans involved in some of the nations highest levels of research and national security honored by country and peers to be bizarre paranoid conspiracy theorist and there statements and petitions to be "whatever youtube videos you can dig up to regurgitate"...that quite a theory...what a strange world you must live in

I love it when you embellish....your experts are not even close to top level anything.
besides high security levels and accolades(a word you have to look up)from peers an severing the country are no safeguard from believing in conspiracies.
as a matter of fact the level of stress caused by that kind responsibility just adds to the problem.
LOOSER.

 

[daws101]

this is so obviously a set up.
We see this when the official news release of wtc7 falling was a little early.

bbc reports collapse of wtc building 7 early-- twice - youtube

debunked

 

[Gardener]

The fires in Trade Center 7 were insufficient to bring down the building.

reality says otherwise.

there were fires on more than 13 of the floors

the fires were unfought for many hours/

in the afternoon the firemen heard the building creeking.

 

[daws101]

strawman much...there would of been thousands of miles of wiring and every kind of electronics imaginable in the trade centers ..wireless detonators have existed for many many years...physics cares not about your little stories of hard you think it would be to covertly demolish a building

so we have unknown numbers of people from unknown agencies or organizations covertly bringing in craptons of explosives, placing them in such a way that nobody at any point gets any the wiser, and nobody ever walks in on them unexpectedly or even someone like a maintenance crew or electrician stumbling across one, and said explosives are set to go off, and none of them fail in such a way that they don't do their job, and of course no remains are ever found by recovery crews in the aftermath...

Versus

...planes full of fuel crash doing all kinds of structural damage, spilt fuel burns hot enough and for long enough to weaken structural members that allows the buildings to collapse...

...and the ninja demolition teams are the more plausible answer.

Well, i'm convinced.

no plane hit wtc 7

the classic eots half truth! but debris from wtc 1 did .. and it was hit by planes.
the only way your explosives were used fantasy would be true is if no debris or fires damaged wtc7 and it suddenly collapsed 7 + hours later.

 

[daws101]

WTC POWER-DOWNS BEFORE 9/11 - WTC EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS - YouTube

debunked!

 

[daws101]

Stunning video: Blaze engulfs skyscraper in Chechnya - YouTube

false comparison!

 

[daws101]

there was nothing unusual about the construction of wtc 7 and the fires where scattered fires on a few floors

13 floors were burning

there is no evidence 13 floors where burning..and office materials will only burn for approx 20 mins before the consume all combustibles in the area and spread tot he next 13 floors did all burn at once but NIST bogus computer model only works with sustained temperature throughout for 7 hrs..these where relatively small office fires.compared to known highrise fires that never collapsed [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVHuAexB83w]WTC 7 fire before collapse (FOIA NIST).mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.
How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[daws101]

As the role of Israel and its powerful lobby in the recent destabilization of the Middle-East becomes clearer, the idea that a gang of Israeli likudniks, helped by their moles in the U.S. administration, are responsible for the false flag 9/11 attacks, is gaining ground. Francesco Cossiga, President of Italy between 1985 and 1992, said in 2007 to the newspaper Corriere della Sera, that it was well known in informed circles in America and Europe that the September 11th attack “was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world in order to blame the Arab countries, and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in both Iraq and Afghanistan”[1]. Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled “Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”, where he explained his conviction that September 11th was “a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation” carried out with the complicity of the U.S. government, in order to lead the United States into a “war of civilizations” against the enemies of Israel — which is to say, against the Arab-Muslim world as a whole[2].

[Those who dare raise suspicions about Israel’s involvement in 9/11 are quickly marginalized as outcasts, as Thierry Meyssan has experienced after his groundbreaking work in exposing The Big Lie less than a year after the event.]

Suspicion of Mossad guilt does not stem only from the reputation of the world’s most powerful secret service, which a report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), quoted by the Washington Times, September 10th, 2001, described as “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act”[3]. The Mossad involvement, together with other Israeli elite units, can be demonstrated by several little known facts. These facts have been compiled by Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, in The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, 2003[4], and by Christopher Bollyn in more than a hundred articles, synthesized in Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World (2012)[5], but they have received little attention in most 9/11 Truth investigative books and websites.
?Was 9/11 an Inside Job, or a Mossad Job?? | Veterans News Now

 

[daws101]

the theory is controlled demolition not your strawmen and who exactly are these experts you claim that all agree with nist ?

there is no evidence of explosives in the rubble

no one looked for explosives in the rubble ..you could not even tell me what it is you would expect to find..and no one found indestructible black boxes in the ruble or massive substation generators but we know they existed...they did however find terrorist bandannas and passports on the sidewalk

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][77][page needed]

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[78] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[79]

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[80] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[81]

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[6][7][8][12] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[82] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[83] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[84]

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[85] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][86] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][50][85][86][87][88] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[89]

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. “I am really not a psychologist,” he said. “Our job was to come up with the best science.”[36] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[90]

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gamolon]

thats total nonsense ..the man worked as an engineer in the world trade center and can attest to the ease in which the core columns could be accessed as well he is backed in his opinion by world class physicist.. Structural engineers ...hardly comparable to your dentist

when will your group of "architects and engineers" reach 1% of the total engineering community?

Pathetic.

In almost 12 years, you can't even get 1%.

Just goes to show you how much interest there is in your idiotic claims.

Here's an idea for you eots. Go ask richard humenn to design your next high rise apartment for you. I'm sure you'll trust that he's a qualified "structural" engineer.

oooooo.1% of engineers have endorse the nist collapse theory

There is no active movement for gathering engineers who support NIST you idiot. Your movement is on life support.

My point is for 12 years you jokers have been pushing this crap and have not even reached 1% support from the total engineering community. Richard Gage is actively sucking money from you dumbasses to pay for his vacat... er... "truther circus". How's that working out?

Yeah he has such compelling evidence.

EPIC FAIL.

 

[eots]

when will your group of "architects and engineers" reach 1% of the total engineering community?

Pathetic.

In almost 12 years, you can't even get 1%.

Just goes to show you how much interest there is in your idiotic claims.

Here's an idea for you eots. Go ask richard humenn to design your next high rise apartment for you. I'm sure you'll trust that he's a qualified "structural" engineer.

oooooo.1% of engineers have endorse the nist collapse theory

There is no active movement for gathering engineers who support NIST you idiot. Your movement is on life support.

My point is for 12 years you jokers have been pushing this crap and have not even reached 1% support from the total engineering community. Richard Gage is actively sucking money from you dumbasses to pay for his vacat... er... "truther circus". How's that working out?

Yeah he has such compelling evidence.

EPIC FAIL.

There is no active movement for gathering engineers who support NIST because it would be a embarrassment To debwunkers when no one would sign on to the shady NIST report

 

[eots]

wtc power-downs before 9/11 - wtc employee interviews - youtube

debunked!

by who ? When ? Where ? ....debwunker...lol

 

[numan]

wtc power-downs before 9/11 - wtc employee interviews - youtube

debunked!

by who ? When ? Where ? ....debwunker...lol

Daws is addicted to one word fiats denying any views with which he does not agree. He apparently thinks this proves something.

You may see this over and over in threads in which he "participates" -- if I may use the word so loosely.
.

 

[daws101]

oooooo.1% of engineers have endorse the nist collapse theory

There is no active movement for gathering engineers who support NIST you idiot. Your movement is on life support.

My point is for 12 years you jokers have been pushing this crap and have not even reached 1% support from the total engineering community. Richard Gage is actively sucking money from you dumbasses to pay for his vacat... er... "truther circus". How's that working out?

Yeah he has such compelling evidence.

EPIC FAIL.

There is no active movement for gathering engineers who support NIST because it would be a embarrassment To debwunkers when no one would sign on to the shady NIST report

total bullshit !

civil & structural engineers on wtc collapse
This is a blog dedicated to all the engineers that have spoken out about what happened on 9/11 but were quotemined by the "truthmovement". I have also added Engineers that just commented on the events that day. I will be updating this blog reguraliry.
Architects and Engineers
I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

 

[daws101]

wtc power-downs before 9/11 - wtc employee interviews - youtube

debunked!

by who ? When ? Where ? ....debwunker...lol

got you by the scrotum again
The story...

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower.
'Power Down' Condition at the WTC on the Weekend Preceding 9/11

Did this provide an opportunity for explosives to be planted?

Our take...

There are problems with this account.

#1, it's sourced by one person only, Scott Forbes, and corroboration seems limited. In an interview he said, for instance:

SF: Many, many people have talked to me about the power down and one person was contacted by a journalist as a backup source for my information.
Killtown: Scott Forbes Interview

But why only one? And where is this backup? The WTC held the offices of many large, important companies, and to have their central computers turned off would have been extremely inconvenient. To put it mildly. Thousands of people would have known about this, from local employees to staff in other parts of the company. So where are they?

Actually there may be a clue in a subsequent Forbes interview:

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...
George Washington's Blog: Interview with Scott Forbes

So Forbes doesn’t appear to have any direct knowledge of conditions on floors below his own, and perhaps above (which makes sense, of course). If only one or two companies were affected then this would make the lack of corroboration more noticeable; of course, this also presents fewer opportunities to prepare the building for demolition.

WTC Power Down


[ame=http://youtu.be/IergOYj63oE]9/11 Debunked: No Drop in WTC security pre-9/11 - YouTube[/ame]