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

[Thoreau72]

Why aren't you asking Tony that? Its his claim.

But since you brought it up, please enlighten us with your specific calculations as to how much fuel each aircraft would have consumed between take off and impact. Then please enlighten us as to how this remaining fuel load was insufficient to cause fires to rage inside the WTC towers.

If you could point to an accurate source of how much fuel was loaded onto ANY of the 4 mythical airline flights, I would be happy to discuss it with you. But we need a starting point--how much fuel was loaded?

 

[Sadling]

Yes I think 15% is a reasonable estimate... How much fuel made into the tower? It had an awful lot of momentum and why would the fuel not continue into the tower?

And what percentage of the entire length of those core columns were damaged? Also, the issue with your 10,000 gallons of fuel comment is not with whether or not that fuel continued into the tower. The issue is with how much of that 10,000 gallons was ignited and burned up during initial impact. I would assume that you have watched enough videos to know that the huge fireball seen during impact represents spent jet fuel. Correct? So, how much of that 10,000 gallons you mentioned do you suppose was burned up during impact?

 

[SanderO]

And what percentage of the entire length of those core columns were damaged? Also, the issue with your 10,000 gallons of fuel comment is not with whether or not that fuel continued into the tower. The issue is with how much of that 10,000 gallons was ignited and burned up during initial impact. I would assume that you have watched enough videos to know that the huge fireball seen during impact represents spent jet fuel. Correct? So, how much of that 10,000 gallons you mentioned do you suppose was burned up during impact?

I can't answer how much burned on impact... I suspect only the fuel which was atomized/aerosolized... and that amount perhaps can be determined by the size of the fire ball. This is not my expertise... but I strongly suspect MOST of the fuel ended up inside the tower.. spread around and was ignited by electrical shorts. Considering the volume of fuel a fireball representing all of the fuel would be much much larger than what we saw. Gas expands. Go after some fire / physics expert to quantify this. I find in impossible to believe that most of the fuel did not make it into the tower.

Doesn't matter what percentage of the length of a column was destroyed in this case. The horizontal impulse either severely dented and displaced the column destroying axial alignment... or severed it completely also destroying the load path from above.

 

[Mark F]

Yes I did say that and corrected it because, although it works for WTC7 it's not really a very good description for the twin towers. The footprint of a building is its foundation. WTC7 collapsed into its foundation, that is visually irrefutable.

Except for the parts that didn't collapse into the foundation, like these:

This I believe is 7 WTC spilled over onto W. Broadway


Here you can see how the wreckage of 7 has completely blocked Washington St and caused substantial damage to the Verizon building on the other side of the street.
http://www.cjwalsh.ie/wp-content/up...uilding-7_Fire-Induced-Progressive-Damage.jpg

Close up of a chunk of 7 embedded in the Verizon building.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

Here is the remains of 7 completely blocking Vessey St.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/NYCTA-MillerG_CD3-049_zps0e366eaf.jpg

Here are a couple of views of the damage to Fiterman Hall, on the opposite side of Vessey and W. Broadway from 7. You can also see 7's remains completely blocking the intersection.

http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group1/building6533/media/fiterman_hall_damage.jpg
http://www.attivissimo.net/11settembre/wtc-fiterman-hall/fiterman-hall-02.jpg

So, please explain how if 7 World Trade Center fell straight down into its own foundation according to whatever video it is that you watched it managed to fall over onto Fiterman Hall AND cause millions of dollars of damage to the Verizon building while completely blocking 4 major streets with debris piles several stories high?

For the twin towers however, they were not really collapses. They were both destroyed as I previously described. From distance, it looks like the path of destruction was into their respective footprints. Upon closer examination however, material can be seen ejected horizontally and symmetrically on all sides and I would guess that what wasn't ejected descended into the buildings' footprint. I don't know how you want to describe it and I don't really care but that's exactly what it looks like to me on all videos.

Define "ejected". Care to speculate on what did the ejecting?

The description of "fell in its footprint" is not really as important as many other issues about the collapses that contradict the official story

So stop making that false claim.

 

[Mark F]

If you could point to an accurate source of how much fuel was loaded onto ANY of the 4 mythical airline flights, I would be happy to discuss it with you. But we need a starting point--how much fuel was loaded?

I'm fairly certain that information is included in NCSTAR 1-5. Odd you didn't know that.

 

[Bob0627]

So, please explain how if 7 World Trade Center fell straight down into its own foundation according to whatever video it is that you watched

I don't need to explain what's observable to anyone with a pair of eyes. Explain it to yourself.

it managed to fall over onto Fiterman Hall AND cause millions of dollars of damage to the Verizon building while completely blocking 4 major streets with debris piles several stories high?

The building was 47 stories tall. That's a massive amount of structural material. Why would anyone expect that all of it would drop into a nice, neat pile and affect nothing? Of course a lot of it affected the surrounding area.

Define "ejected".

Ejected | Define Ejected at Dictionary.com

Care to speculate on what did the ejecting?

I can tell you, without speculating, that a natural collapse cannot eject massive amounts of structural material, some weighing 50-70 tons, horizontally and at velocities of around 50MPH or more, causing such material to imbed into nearby buildings and damage another building more than a football field distant. It would take a tremendous amount of force that is not present in a natural collapse.

So stop making that false claim.

I didn't make any false claims, that would be you who constantly makes false claims. I may have described something inaccurately and when I did, I corrected it but that's not the same as knowingly making a false claim.

 

[Mark F]

I don't need to explain what's observable to anyone with a pair of eyes. Explain it to yourself.

The building was 47 stories tall. That's a massive amount of structural material. Why would anyone expect that all of it would drop into a nice, neat pile and affect nothing? Of course a lot of it affected the surrounding area.

Ejected | Define Ejected at Dictionary.com

I can tell you, without speculating, that a natural collapse cannot eject massive amounts of structural material, some weighing 50-70 tons, horizontally and at velocities of around 50MPH or more, causing such material to imbed into nearby buildings and damage another building more than a football field distant. It would take a tremendous amount of force that is not present in a natural collapse.

I didn't make any false claims, that would be you who constantly makes false claims. I may have described something inaccurately and when I did, I corrected it but that's not the same as knowingly making a false claim.

Your missing the plot again. That video, due to its angle, does not show how the building twisted leaned - the reason for example it hit Fiterman Hall. This is why 9/11 Truth has a 13 year track record of fail. They look at one piece of evidence that confirms the conclusion they started with and ignore everything else.

Objectively speaking, 7 World Trade Center did not by any stretch of the imagination land in its foundation.

 

[Bob0627]

Your missing the plot again. That video, due to its angle, does not show how the building twisted leaned - the reason for example it hit Fiterman Hall.

The video shows what it shows and doesn't show what it doesn't show. So why would you expect anyone to describe anything other than what they can readily see with their own eyes (you excluded of course)?

This is why 9/11 Truth has a 13 year track record of fail.

No this is why the official narrative and subjugated parrots such as yourself have a 13 year track record of utter fail. With your BS pseudo science and silly verbal trickery, much of it quite juvenile, you haven't convinced anyone who understands that the 9/11 narrative is a massive hoax that the official narrative is fact.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

lol massive hoax. Cast of thousands, nary a whistleblower.

 

[Mark F]

The video shows what it shows and doesn't show what it doesn't show. So why would you expect anyone to describe anything other than what they can readily see with their own eyes (you excluded of course)?

I would expect an impartial observer to rely on more than one bit of evidence before forming a conclusion AND be willing to modify that conclusion if/when new evidence is presented.

On 9/11/2001 it is not true that 7 World Trade Center collapsed into its own footprint. It most assuredly did not and the evidence for this is abundant if you go beyond relying on a single video shot from far away. The fell in its footprint meme was invented by people who thought they had to claim this to justify claims for CD by inventing things that did not happen, and hoping gullible people who don't take the extra 2 minutes to do some basic research wouldn't catch on. You say you want to know the truth, so why do you fall for such transparent nonsense? Fell into its own footprint isn't relevant anyway. Even if the building had done such a thing it is not a proof of MHI or of natural collapse. Neither is the fact that it didn't land in its own footprint proof of MHI or natural collapse.

 

[Lethbridge]

lol massive hoax. Cast of thousands, nary a whistleblower.

You cite this as your reason for embracing the official story of
the events of 9/11/2001, including all of the obvious anomalies
such as but not limited to the lack of wreckage at any of the crash sites
FLT11, FLT175, FLT77, FLT93, the demolition of the towers & 7
the selective nature of the data included in the Kean report, that
is testimony that was rejected, first responders who where not heard,
evidence that was not admitted into the process.
One only need look at the big picture
Including ( but not limited to ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvPUKSl5Qig

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You cite this as your reason for embracing the official story of
the events of 9/11/2001, including all of the obvious anomalies
such as but not limited to the lack of wreckage at any of the crash sites
FLT11, FLT175, FLT77, FLT93, the demolition of the towers & 7
the selective nature of the data included in the Kean report, that
is testimony that was rejected, first responders who where not heard,
evidence that was not admitted into the process.

Ummm...sure? What's the "official" story? Who came up with it? Who released it?

 

[Lethbridge]

I would expect an impartial observer to rely on more than one bit of evidence before forming a conclusion AND be willing to modify that conclusion if/when new evidence is presented.

On 9/11/2001 it is not true that 7 World Trade Center collapsed into its own footprint. It most assuredly did not and the evidence for this is abundant if you go beyond relying on a single video shot from far away. The fell in its footprint meme was invented by people who thought they had to claim this to justify claims for CD by inventing things that did not happen, and hoping gullible people who don't take the extra 2 minutes to do some basic research wouldn't catch on. You say you want to know the truth, so why do you fall for such transparent nonsense? Fell into its own footprint isn't relevant anyway. Even if the building had done such a thing it is not a proof of MHI or of natural collapse. Neither is the fact that it didn't land in its own footprint proof of MHI or natural collapse.

People can expend a lot of time debating "in its own footprint" or not
and the focus of this thread was ( I believe ) the fraudulent report by
the NIST. If indeed it can be shown that the NIST misrepresented the
structural details of WTC7, that in-and-of itself is plenty of evidence to
bust the NIST for at the very least, total incompetence.

BTW: has anyone seen the youtube video "Why the NIST report on WTC7 is unscientific.... " ?

 

[Lethbridge]

Ummm...sure? What's the "official" story? Who came up with it? Who released it?

Do you remember the "Harley guy"
the official explanation of what happened has been being pushed by the media
since 9/11/2001, and its still being promoted in a manner that is very suspicious,
in that if anyone has the gall to question the official version of events, then that
person gets labeled as one of those "crazy people"

America does not have a free press anymore, we have media that is controlled by big money.

 

[Thoreau72]

I'm fairly certain that information is included in NCSTAR 1-5. Odd you didn't know that.

Then why don't you translate that certainty into action, and show that relevant part of NCSTAR? I would love to read it, and thanks again for linking to Bollyn's site.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Do you remember the "Harley guy"
the official explanation of what happened has been being pushed by the media
since 9/11/2001, and its still being promoted in a manner that is very suspicious,
in that if anyone has the gall to question the official version of events, then that
person gets labeled as one of those "crazy people"

America does not have a free press anymore, we have media that is controlled by big money.

What the **** is this? What is the "official story" and who released it? Is your answer seriously "the media"? looooooooooooool

 

[Thoreau72]

What the **** is this? What is the "official story" and who released it? Is your answer seriously "the media"? looooooooooooool

You defend it, yet you do not even know what the official story is???

 

[Lethbridge]

What the **** is this? What is the "official story" and who released it? Is your answer seriously "the media"? looooooooooooool

Lots of people now have these gadgets that allow for the recording of 4 or more TV programs
at the same time, try an experiment if you will, record the "evening news" for different networks
all on the same night, and observe that they all cover the same set of "news" stories and in many cases
read from the exact same script and use the same words as do the other networks.

Who decides what constitutes "news" to be broadcast to the masses?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You defend it, yet you do not even know what the official story is???

What am I defending? ???

That's the question!

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Lots of people now have these gadgets that allow for the recording of 4 or more TV programs
at the same time, try an experiment if you will, record the "evening news" for different networks
all on the same night, and observe that they all cover the same set of "news" stories and in many cases
read from the exact same script and use the same words as do the other networks.

Who decides what constitutes "news" to be broadcast to the masses?

Did you think this answered my question?

 

[Thoreau72]

What am I defending? ???

That's the question!

I suppose this post should be expected, all things considered. eace

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I suppose this post should be expected, all things considered. eace

God that was a moronic response lol

You say I'm defending something, so what am I supposed to be defending? You don't even know? lol

 

[Thoreau72]

God that was a moronic response lol

You say I'm defending something, so what am I supposed to be defending? You don't even know? lol

You defend the official story. The Official Conspiracy Theory. The Greatest Story Ever Told In Modern Times.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You defend the official story. The Official Conspiracy Theory. The Greatest Story Ever Told In Modern Times.

WHAT is it? WHO released it? That's the point. If you don't tell me these things, I can't tell you if I defend it or not.

Did you have a stroke recently? Is there something preventing you from typing out the answer to these things?

 

[Lethbridge]

Did you think this answered my question?

I'm offering up proof that the free press in AMERICA
really isn't free, its owned by big money.

A TV network that is owned by General Electric
can not be expected to report news of the fact that
GE is a huge "defense contractor" with its tentacles
into the halls of power. My bit about checking the
content of 4 ( or more ) evening "news" programs
to see the parallels in the reporting and what is considered "news".
was intended to illustrate the point that consolidation has already happened.

At the time of the American Revolution, there were hundreds if
not thousands of independent printers in the Colonies and these
all had totally independent management. Ironically Ben Franklin
started to franchise his printing operation into many different locations,
pre-revolution however, there is a difference between a small number of
printers under one banner, rather than a huge number of radio and TV
broadcasters under unified management.

KILL YOUR TELEVISION!