NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[Fledermaus]

1. No one knows what brought WTC7 down so why would you expect me to know?

Ask NIST. They have the best probable scenario.

 

[mike2810]

What YOU have is a failure to communicate. Make yourself clear.



1. No one knows what brought WTC7 down so why would you expect me to know?
2. Why on earth do you want me to explain it to you anyway? I'm just an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum. If I told you would you believe me?

I told you I want to know who, how and what brought it down. That's the point of a real investigation. Get it yet?

What we have is your opinion.
"No one knows what brought WTC7 down so why would you expect me to know?" So you don't believe the CD explanation either. Interesting you don't challenge the CD explanation.

The problem you have Bob, is that not everyone agrees with your statement.

I won't ask you again. Since you don't know who, how or what, there is not much for you to add.

My thoughts that a new investigation would not satisfy you. I suspect you would find fault with it if it confirmed that fire took the buildings down.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

A cast of thousands. Everyone is lying to truthers.

 

[shanners]

Most individual engineers would not have been involved in the overall picture. Most decisions are made by a few at the top with individuals performing separate tasks at lower levels. It is called compartmentalization.

Precisely:

"Compartmentalization is an organizational strategy analogous to the old parable of the blind men and an elephant -- each of the men is asked to describe what the elephant is, and all accurately describe their perception (trunk, tusk, legs, ears, tail, body), but none of them understand what the entire elephant is. Covert operations succeed by keeping most of the participants focused on their particular task, unaware of the full situation. Compartmentalization means that only key people in key places need to know what their role in a covert operation is -- others nearby might not be aware of those ensuring the success of the operation. This practice refutes the claim that too many people would have had to know about 9/11 for a conspiracy to allow it to have been possible."


9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | Too Grand a Conspiracy?

 

[shanners]

A cast of thousands.

You're still coming out with the same old crap that thousands would have to be in on it when you've been shown this is not how such events operate and certainly wouldn't have been the case here:

"Compartmentalization ... refutes the claim that too many people would have had to know about 9/11 for a conspiracy to allow it to have been possible ... So, in other words, one person turns a particular screw here, another punches up a computer war game over there, someone else is told to 'mock-up' a phantom airplane to challenge controllers involved in the war game over there, another is told to leak a piece of information next door, another is told to delete some damaging information to protect their department downstairs, a commander from a squadron is told by his superiors that communication has been lost with the Pentagon and to 'wait' for further orders, tapes and testimony from principals involved are either 'lost', 'classified', or outright destroyed, and a few at the top who do know exactly what is happening just go on stirring the pot of chaos and confusion ...

"For the particularly heavy and devious work - like the planting of explosives in the Towers, the aeronautical maneuvers and modifications, etc. - is it such a stretch to think that foreign mercenaries, with no emotional investment whatsoever in the well-being of potential victims, and with ample experience in all sorts of covert intelligence and military operations could be brought in to carry out the dirty work? Conservative and Nationalist elements within Israel benefited as much from 9/11 as did our own Neo-Con faction. Surely the Mossad has amply trained operatives with enough experience in counter-intelligence, weaponry, and explosives to have pulled off the rigging of the Towers and other sensitive aspects of the mission. Especially if they were being aided and abetted by folks with high-level security clearance in our own government. And indeed, there are well-documented stories of multiple Israeli links to 9/11, including a group of Israeli nationals arrested for some very bizarre behavior on the morning of 9/11. "(Counterpunch) has put together a phenomenal synthesis of the highly suspicious Israeli intelligence activities in the U.S. on and before 9/11. An enormous network of 'art students', many of whom were located just blocks from the (alleged) 9/11 hijackers; and a small group of five or six Israeli intelligence operatives who were witnessed by many celebrating on a rooftop, with surveillance equipment, very soon after the first plane hit the Trade Center."


9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | Too Grand a Conspiracy?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Atta is the one and only cause for the NIST report. You comprende, right?

It sounds like you do still have bedtime stories read to you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So in your world buildings are designed to free fall in their own footprint when they collapse?

It sounds like Mark F doesn't want to get into the actual real world mechanics to explain himself. He just wants to use sound bite type phrases he heard somewhere like the JREF forum and then uses them regardless of their lack of connection to reality.

In reality, the only way to match what was observed is for the core columns of WTC 7 to be removed over eight stories and they will pull the perimeter in over that height and the entire building will drop like a rock for those eight stories to start.

Explaining Mark F's comment about "over G" acceleration is also easy enough. Since the core was already falling at free fall and its speed had increased it would act like a whip on the exterior and produce a slight over G acceleration to start on the exterior which then settled into an acceleration at G.

It is very likely that the east penthouse collapse was a separate and distinct event and was not caused by column 79 failing low in the building, as there is no exterior deformation, sunlight is only visible through the uppermost story windows afterward, no white dust is seen coming out of the east side windows until the entire exterior is coming down, and there is a shock wave which goes top to bottom with windows broken for only about fifteen stories from the top.

This means the core did not fail on the east first and then the west, but that it failed simultaneously and caused the symmetric fall of the exterior.

The bottom line here is that taking the east penthouse down locally with failures high in the building on that side and seconds later taking out the twenty-four columns of the central core of WTC 7 for eight stories produces the observed effects.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No Atta... NO NIST REPORT....

The would be NOTHING for NIST to report on.

And NIST gave a PROBABLE collapse theory. Where is the FRAUD?

Do you not know about the omissions of the girder stiffeners and lateral support beams discussed in the Pepper Letter to the Dept. of Commerce Inspector General last December?

It is available here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You're still coming out with the same old crap that thousands would have to be in on it when you've been shown this is not how such events operate and certainly wouldn't have been the case here:

"Compartmentalization ... refutes the claim that too many people would have had to know about 9/11 for a conspiracy to allow it to have been possible ... So, in other words, one person turns a particular screw here, another punches up a computer war game over there, someone else is told to 'mock-up' a phantom airplane to challenge controllers involved in the war game over there, another is told to leak a piece of information next door, another is told to delete some damaging information to protect their department downstairs, a commander from a squadron is told by his superiors that communication has been lost with the Pentagon and to 'wait' for further orders, tapes and testimony from principals involved are either 'lost', 'classified', or outright destroyed, and a few at the top who do know exactly what is happening just go on stirring the pot of chaos and confusion ...

"For the particularly heavy and devious work - like the planting of explosives in the Towers, the aeronautical maneuvers and modifications, etc. - is it such a stretch to think that foreign mercenaries, with no emotional investment whatsoever in the well-being of potential victims, and with ample experience in all sorts of covert intelligence and military operations could be brought in to carry out the dirty work? Conservative and Nationalist elements within Israel benefited as much from 9/11 as did our own Neo-Con faction. Surely the Mossad has amply trained operatives with enough experience in counter-intelligence, weaponry, and explosives to have pulled off the rigging of the Towers and other sensitive aspects of the mission. Especially if they were being aided and abetted by folks with high-level security clearance in our own government. And indeed, there are well-documented stories of multiple Israeli links to 9/11, including a group of Israeli nationals arrested for some very bizarre behavior on the morning of 9/11. "(Counterpunch) has put together a phenomenal synthesis of the highly suspicious Israeli intelligence activities in the U.S. on and before 9/11. An enormous network of 'art students', many of whom were located just blocks from the (alleged) 9/11 hijackers; and a small group of five or six Israeli intelligence operatives who were witnessed by many celebrating on a rooftop, with surveillance equipment, very soon after the first plane hit the Trade Center."


9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | Too Grand a Conspiracy?

I'm not the one claiming that all of NIST, hundreds of FBI SAs, federal judges, military air controllers, etc are in on it.

 

[Bob0627]

"No one knows what brought WTC7 down so why would you expect me to know?" So you don't believe the CD explanation either. Interesting you don't challenge the CD explanation.

Man you are seriously confused. Where did I say I don't believe the CD explanation? Just because I don't know who, how and what was done doesn't mean I don't believe it was a CD. I already told you it's the only explanation that makes sense, pay attention.

The problem you have Bob, is that not everyone agrees with your statement.

That's a problem I have? Why is that a problem I have? Why would I expect everyone to agree with me? Do you expect everyone to agree with you? Is that a problem you have?

I won't ask you again. Since you don't know who, how or what, there is not much for you to add.

No one knows what happened. Add to what?

My thoughts that a new investigation would not satisfy you. I suspect you would find fault with it if it confirmed that fire took the buildings down.

If it confirmed that fire alone took the building down, it would not be a real investigation. That makes no sense. But I'd certainly be curious as to what kind of logic would allegedly confirm that.

 

[Bob0627]

It sounds like Mark F doesn't want to get into the actual real world mechanics to explain himself. He just wants to use sound bite type phrases he heard somewhere like the JREF forum and then uses them regardless of their lack of connection to reality.

To be fair, he hasn't yet confirmed that he believes buildings are designed to collapse into their own footprints but that's what it sounds like. The obvious problem with that is if it's true, why would there be a need for a CD industry? To bring down a building into its own footprint would only require that it be set on fire then. That's a lot cheaper way to bring down a building than a CD. The other obvious problem with that is no high rise steel frame building has ever collapsed as a result of fire alone either before or after 9/11, let alone into its own footprint.

In reality, the only way to match what was observed is for the core columns of WTC 7 to be removed over eight stories and they will pull the perimeter in over that height and the entire building will drop like a rock for those eight stories to start.

Explaining Mark F's comment about "over G" acceleration is also easy enough. Since the core was already falling at free fall and its speed had increased it would act like a whip on the exterior and produce a slight over G acceleration to start on the exterior which then settled into an acceleration at G.

It is very likely that the east penthouse collapse was a separate and distinct event and was not caused by column 79 failing low in the building, as there is no exterior deformation, sunlight is only visible through the uppermost story windows afterward, no white dust is seen coming out of the east side windows until the entire exterior is coming down, and there is a shock wave which goes top to bottom with windows broken for only about fifteen stories from the top.

This means the core did not fail on the east first and then the west, but that it failed simultaneously and caused the symmetric fall of the exterior.

The bottom line here is that taking the east penthouse down locally with failures high in the building on that side and seconds later taking out the twenty-four columns of the central core of WTC 7 for eight stories produces the observed effects.

Interesting theory. It would be equally interesting if a computer model using ALL the known data could be constructed to see if it would yield such a result or any other result. And this is one of the biggest problems with NIST, by immediately eliminating a CD hypothesis, NIST never attempted to construct such a model.

 

[Thoreau72]

Good point Bob--if the government story is accurate and correct, then all future structure demolitions could be achieved by merely bringing in some jetfuel, sprinkle liberally on the office furnishings, and light it off. Voila! Complete destruction, and collapse at near free fall speeds.

:mrgreen:

 

[Mark F]

So in your world buildings are designed to free fall in their own footprint when they collapse?

What building collapsed onto its own footprint on 9/11?

 

[Mark F]

It sounds like Mark F doesn't want to get into the actual real world mechanics to explain himself. He just wants to use sound bite type phrases he heard somewhere like the JREF forum and then uses them regardless of their lack of connection to reality.

In reality, the only way to match what was observed is for the core columns of WTC 7 to be removed over eight stories and they will pull the perimeter in over that height and the entire building will drop like a rock for those eight stories to start.

Explaining Mark F's comment about "over G" acceleration is also easy enough. Since the core was already falling at free fall and its speed had increased it would act like a whip on the exterior and produce a slight over G acceleration to start on the exterior which then settled into an acceleration at G.

It is very likely that the east penthouse collapse was a separate and distinct event and was not caused by column 79 failing low in the building, as there is no exterior deformation, sunlight is only visible through the uppermost story windows afterward, no white dust is seen coming out of the east side windows until the entire exterior is coming down, and there is a shock wave which goes top to bottom with windows broken for only about fifteen stories from the top.

This means the core did not fail on the east first and then the west, but that it failed simultaneously and caused the symmetric fall of the exterior.

The bottom line here is that taking the east penthouse down locally with failures high in the building on that side and seconds later taking out the twenty-four columns of the central core of WTC 7 for eight stories produces the observed effects.

How exactly did you measure the speed of collapse of the core columns?

 

[mike2810]

If it confirmed that fire alone took the building down, it would not be a real investigation. That makes no sense. But I'd certainly be curious as to what kind of logic would allegedly confirm that.

Your the one confused Bob.

Your statement of "If it confirmed that fire alone took the building down, it would not be a real investigation" indicates your bias if any new investigation was done.

Your dodging and its no use to continue with you. So if fire alone could not take the buildings down, what else could it be?
Bet you don't give a range of possible causes.. You like being vague and non committal.

 

[Bob0627]

What building collapsed onto its own footprint on 9/11?

WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Do you wear glasses when you watch the videos or did you not see the videos?

 

[Bob0627]

Your the one confused Bob.

Your statement of "If it confirmed that fire alone took the building down, it would not be a real investigation" indicates your bias if any new investigation was done.

So if I don't believe the tooth fairy took down WTC7, I would also be biased in your opinion?

Your dodging and its no use to continue with you.

No one is making you continue. If it's too uncomfortable for you, stop at any time.

So if fire alone could not take the buildings down, what else could it be?

Duh, wait this is really difficult. A CD?

Bet you don't give a range of possible causes.. You like being vague and non committal.

Yeah, you're right, I didn't include the tooth fairy, Dick Cheney or a meltdown as possible causes.

 

[ozeco41]

How exactly did you measure the speed of collapse of the core columns?

Don't miss the point which shows Tony is learning:

Explaining Mark F's comment about "over G" acceleration is also easy enough. Since the core was already falling at free fall and its speed had increased it would act like a whip on the exterior and produce a slight over G acceleration to start on the exterior which then settled into an acceleration at [around] G.

..."One small step" :mrgreen:

Now I wonder where he got that gem of "free body physics" from. :3oops:

And contrast that with other claims of "averaging G" but "no over G" and somehow not recognising that those two are contradictory. :roll:

 

[SanderO]

Good point Bob--if the government story is accurate and correct, then all future structure demolitions could be achieved by merely bringing in some jetfuel, sprinkle liberally on the office furnishings, and light it off. Voila! Complete destruction, and collapse at near free fall speeds.

:mrgreen:

add some mechanical damage to 15% or more of the columns and several slabs shattered and make that in the order of 10,000 gallons and diable the sprinkler systems of course and leave all the combustible contents in place.

 

[ozeco41]

What building collapsed onto its own footprint on 9/11?

WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Do you wear glasses when you watch the videos or did you not see the videos?

Some footprint:

 

[Mark F]

Good point Bob--if the government story is accurate and correct, then all future structure demolitions could be achieved by merely bringing in some jetfuel, sprinkle liberally on the office furnishings, and light it off. Voila! Complete destruction, and collapse at near free fall speeds.

:mrgreen:

I think you forgot something.

 

[Bob0627]

Some footprint:
View attachment 67167337

Is that supposed to be a video of the collapse of a building?

 

[ozeco41]

add some mechanical damage to 15% or more of the columns and several slabs shattered and make that in the order of 10,000 gallons and diable the sprinkler systems of course and leave all the combustible contents in place.

PLUS - don't overlook - inject the lot using a Boeing as both Hypodermic and Bulldozer to heap the furniture AND fit-out to one side AND do it in a tube-in-tube construction building with limited fire fighting redundancy AND...

...even then you wouldn't guarantee it.

 

[Mark F]

WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Do you wear glasses when you watch the videos or did you not see the videos?

This is the debris map for the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) produced during the Weidlinger Associates study.



It shows debris from the North Tower falling on buildings 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the World Trade Center complex, the Verizon building across Vessey St, and the Winter Garden and World Financial Center buildings across West St.

Were these structures and these streets all in the footprint of 1 World Trade Center?

This photo is on the web site of your buddies over at AE911T where they claim 7 World Trade Center landed in its own footprint.



That building at the top of the photo is Fiterman Hall. It is on the opposite corner from 7 World Trade at Barclay and W. Broadway, both 4-lane steets. As you can see Fiterman Hall has sustained substantial damage from the collapse of 7 WTC. So substantial in fact they ended up writing the building off and tearing it down.

Was Fiterman Hall inside 7 World Trade Centers footprint?

How about Barclay St? It was completely blocked by the debris from 7 which rose 5-6 stories high.

How about Washington St? It was completely blocked by debris from 7 as well, some of which hit the Verizon Building. Where those also in 7 WTC's "footprint"?

 

[Mark F]

Don't miss the point which shows Tony is learning:
..."One small step" :mrgreen:

Now I wonder where he got that gem of "free body physics" from. :3oops:

And contrast that with other claims of "averaging G" but "no over G" and somehow not recognising that those two are contradictory. :roll:

You are correct. I should have given Tony appropriate props for that. It is a lesson Bob still hasn't figured out. Maybe now,...