|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 17, 2013 9:08:40 GMT -5
The NIST Animation Model: NIST's THEORY is a claim that the collapse of WTC7 was initiated by the failure of one vertical column (79) which was located in one corner of the building. That due to thermal expansion from intense heat, several horizontal columns pushed column 79 off its seat, causing it to fail and that a "rapid" succession of columns progressively failed, leading to the total collapse of WTC7. NIST also claims that following the penthouse collapse, allegedly due to the failure of column 79, WTC7 dropped at free fall speed for the first 100 feet (8 stories) for 2.25 seconds. Shyam Sunder announced that this collapse cause and sequence was "obvious" a few years after he said that NIST could not get a handle on what caused WTC7 to collapse. The above model obviously fails to demonstrate any of this. NIST also refused a FIOA request for any of the material used in compiling the program model citing that its public release would "jeopardize public safety". The animation seems to purport that the collapse was initiated at some lower floor, showing some sort of bottom to top domino effect that brought the penthouse down and that the collapse actually started on one side in the interior of the building that no one could see (the surrounding walls seem stationary at first), then the interior collapse seems to drag down the rest of the interior of the building, eventually bringing the exterior walls inward (the animation shows a severe wedge beginning at the center the roof line and opening widely down). There does not seem to be a link between the column 79 failure and the progressive column failures during the collapse and there is nothing in the animation that matches the description of the free fall at what NIST labels "stage 2". And the animation abruptly stops at the first few moments of the collapse, the rest of the collapse (the majority) is left up to everyone's imagination. Then there's the REALITY that fails to match the animation: The entire sequence of events, according to NIST, was strictly due to fire and NO OTHER contributing factors. NIST specifically claims that the debris from the collapse of the North Tower that damaged WTC7 did not contribute to its collapse other than starting the fire(s). The following are before and after photos of other steel frame highrise towers: Windsor Tower, Madrid on fire: Windsor Tower after fire: Al Tayer during/after: Chechnya Highrise on fire: Chechnya Highrise on fire (another view): Chechnya Highrise after fire: First Interstate Bank on fire: First Interstate Bank after fire: Mandarin Oriental Hotel on fire: Mandarin Oriental Hotel (closer): Mandarin Oriental Hotel (closer different side): Mandarin Oriental Hotel after fire: WTC 7 north wall fire, 3 hours before collapse (tall, darker building in middle, with lighter buildings on either side): WTC 7 east wall fire (closer): WTC 7 east wall fire: WTC 7 immediately before collapse, north side: WTC 7 after fire:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 17, 2013 23:46:11 GMT -5
You think you people get the PICTURE yet?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 18, 2013 2:36:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 18, 2013 9:58:37 GMT -5
"Bob's fraud revisited."
And the fraud you believe I committed is?
Is it that I pointed out that the NIST programmed cartoon doesn't match their theory as described in their report or the actual videos of the collapse of WTC7 or both? Is it that I posted before and after pictures of several different high rise steel frame infernos and compared them to what happened with WTC7 on 9/11? Is there a before and after picture of any similar high rise inferno that matches what happened to WTC7 that I didn't post? Did I mention anything that wasn't in the NIST report? Are the videos doctored? Are the pictures doctored?
So which of these is allegedly a fraud?
"Buildings constructed by completely different methods which were not struck by hijacked aircraft at full speed"
That's right, none of the buildings referenced in this thread were struck by hijacked aircraft, what does that have to do with your bulls**t claim that I committed fraud?
You must be so really upset I posted PICTURES with NO sound. They have no meaning without sound. If you want, I'll add some music with them next time.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 19, 2013 2:00:22 GMT -5
Your comparisons are fraudulent. You are misrepresenting the damage to the WTC's and the fires inside them as to allege that they would have survived because you've posted photos of buildings that weren't constructed in the same ways (for example concrete cores and reinforced transfer sections) and didn't have damage to the fireproofing in them.
I have in the past shown you steel buildings which have fallen because of fire alone, and yes, those steel buildings weren't constructed the same way as the WTC's either but at least the building material was the same, rather than reinforced concrete.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 19, 2013 8:12:05 GMT -5
Pictures and videos are worth a thousand words. I don't have to represent or misrepresent what any fool can see for him/herself. You want to try to tell everyone what to see. Everyone who has a healthy pair of eyes does not need you to tell them what's in the pictures and videos. The same is true for the NIST animation other than that some may not have read NIST's Final Report on WTC7 so I posted what the most significant points were in conjunction with NIST's fabricated animation along with a compilation video of the collapse of WTC7. There's not one thing that's fraudulent about those videos and photos. They speak for themselves just like all the FACTS about 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 19, 2013 15:57:34 GMT -5
Ušće Tower (Serbian Cyrillic: Ушће, meaning "confluence", pronounced Oosh-cheh, is a 25-story mixed use skyscraper located at 6 Mihajlo Pupin Boulevard in the Novi Beograd municipality of Belgrade, Serbia. It is currently the tallest building in Serbia, and the second-tallest freestanding structure in Serbia, after the Avala Tower. Built in 1964, the glass building overlooks the confluence Danube and Sava rivers from the New Belgrade side. It was originally 105 meters tall and used as the headquarters of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in the former Yugoslavia. Ušće was frequently leased out to commercial interests until April 21, 1999, when it was badly damaged by successive NATO air-strikes as part of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Beginning in 2003, the tower was reconstructed, including a 2-floor increase[1] (141 m / 462 ft in total)[3] in height, with the addition of a 26m antenna, which in strict architectural terms does not count as structural height, however, in structural height would actually be 115 m or 377 ft. The new tower, Ušće Office Tower 1, is now being rented out to tenants. The Ušće Complex, a modern business center, is also due to be completed within the next three years. NATO bombingOn April 21, 1999 NATO air strikes hit the building, setting the upper floors on fire. Several days later NATO repeated the attack. In total, 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at the building. Despite the heavy damage, the building did not collapse and remained structurally intact. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usce_tower
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 20, 2013 11:16:44 GMT -5
This thread should be renamed Bob's fraud revisited. Your post says nothing about fireproofing inside or it's construction method. My guess is a grid. I see no evidence of it being steel tube in steel tube. Secondly it's only 25 stories high. Effect of load is lower meaning structural weight can be greater and load bearing columns can be of heavier duty materials. No airliner hit it. Mechanical damage was much less. Tomahawk's aren't thermobaric, so fire will have taken longer to spread and burned out in other places rather than large area fires of around 1000C against unprotected steel.
So yet again, a bogus comparison from you which is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 20, 2013 12:31:02 GMT -5
"This thread should be renamed Bob's fraud revisited."
No plane hit ANY of the buildings shown in this thread, I already said that. Are you that dense or are you just trying your damnedest to protect the real fraudsters? I say the latter. You haven't made any case that any of the pictures I posted are fraudulent, you're just shooting the messenger as usual and the pictures (many are the very same ones you've posted in the past), because pictures and videos show what's obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 21, 2013 10:36:24 GMT -5
WTC7 was hit by WTC1 (which was hit by a 767, was structurally damaged structurally weakened by fire and collapsed), none of the other buildings were built the same way or damaged the same way as any WTC building so your fraudulent comparison is worthless.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 21, 2013 12:49:06 GMT -5
WTC7 was hit by WTC1 (which was hit by a 767, was structurally damaged structurally weakened by fire and collapsed), none of the other buildings were built the same way or damaged the same way as any WTC building so your fraudulent comparison is worthless. I guess you missed the article and pictures on Ušće Tower. As to what's worthless to you, who cares? You're worthless to me.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 7:52:41 GMT -5
USCE tower was nothing like the twin towers. USCE tower was hit by 1.27 tonne Tomahawk missile at roughly 550mph with a 1000lb high explosive warhead. WTC2 was hit by a 167.3 tonne Boeing 767 at a speed of at least 537mph (MIT independent study) with 49,458 lb (22433.8kg) of explosive jet fuel which was used as a thermobaric weapon. 167.3 Imperial tonnes (aka long tonnes) = 169984.65kg aircraft + fuel 22433.8 = 192418.25kg 530mph in m/s = 240.06 m/s Kinetic energy = 5,544,416,769.15285 joules (five thousand five hundred and forty four megajoules of kinetic energy). WTC's 1&2 wwre only designed to withstand the accidental impact of a landing Boeing 707 at 135mph, the scenario of an out of fuel airliner lost in fog while attempting an emergency landing was the only consideration. 707 weight 66,406 kg, speed 135mph (135mph is 60.35 metres per second), kinetic energy 120,929,393.3675 joules (one hundred and twenty point nine mega joules). Kinetic energy calculator here incase you wish to check the maths: www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.htmlDesign consideration was 120.9 mega joules. Flight 175 impact was 5,544.416 mega joules. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 8:28:15 GMT -5
All the pictures are of buildings that were on fire, most were infernos, were NOT hit by an airplane and didn't collapse. One building was hit by cruise missiles multiple times. The only one shown in this thread that did collapse was WTC7.
The NIST fraud I pointed out was for the Final Report on WTC7, I didn't bring up the NIST fraud on the WTC1 & WTC2 Report in this thread. You keep bringing in WTC1 & WTC2, and although there was not any reason for either of these towers to collapse globally either at an accelerating velocity, it isn't the point of this thread. But you know that because I already pointed that out to you more than once, you just want to try to confuse the point.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:20:14 GMT -5
The buildings weren't constructed the same way the levels of damage were far less than the impacts of airliners or 50 tonne spandrels from WTC1. Concrete has much better fire resistance than steel, grid buildings have much better fire resistance than tube in tube structures, effect of load was different...
Your worthless comparisons are utterly bogus and irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 10:32:00 GMT -5
Your post is worthless, it has nothing to do with the point of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:38:46 GMT -5
Er, your entire thread is worthless and irrelevant. WTC7 was structurally damaged and on fire it lost structural integrity after seven hours of fire and gave way.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 10:52:23 GMT -5
So then why are you posting in this thread if you feel the entire thread is worthless?
|
|