|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 29, 2013 23:08:36 GMT -5
The collapse of WTC7 makes zero sense on many different levels. One of the most basic points is the symmetrical FREE FALL acceleration of WTC7 for the first 100 feet (8 stories) for 2.25 seconds, through the path of greatest resistance. There is only one possible way this can occur. NIST agrees that the free fall did indeed as documented in the Final NIST Report. Further, Shyam Sunder did claim during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, that “free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it". In other words, free fall can only occur if ALL 81 columns of WTC7 were taken out at the exact same time, leaving of course "no structural components below" to impede the collapsing building. However, NIST's theoretical claim as to how the collapse of WTC7 was initiated revolves around the failure of a single column (79), not the failure of ALL 81 columns at the exact same time. Of course, NIST has no evidence whatsoever that this actually took place so NIST had to invent that theory, even though it contradicts the FACT that all 81 columns had to fail at the exact same time for the symmetrical free fall to take place. The problem with that theory (aside from the free fall issue admitted by NIST) is that NIST had to present fallacious drawings to try to support that theory. One could say that NIST was incompetent or deliberately fraudulent. If NIST were incompetent, then it would serve to invalidate their entire report. An incompetent "investigation" cannot produce a valid result. On the other hand, if NIST committed deliberate fraud, then the following federal law applies: 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3):
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully –
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. WTC7 - The Stiffener Plates Explained:Of course the missing stiffener plates are not the only omissions by NIST, there's the matter of the missing shear studs as well. This was covered here (see video 1): aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/9252/fraud-revisited-updated-expert-summariesThe column 79 theory is not only impossible because of the free fall, it is also impossible given that the welded stiffener plates make it impossible as well. Whether in your own judgement you feel that NIST was incompent or committed fraud, it is more than obvious that the Final NIST Report on WTC7 is not valid. And if that report is not valid for either reason, it also raises questions about the validity of the NIST Report on the twin towers.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Sept 29, 2013 23:22:51 GMT -5
that's some crazy s**t man
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 30, 2013 3:49:15 GMT -5
The building was badly designed, over extended beyond it's foundations to straddle a Con-Edison substation, it was badly damaged, it was burning for seven hours and leaning, damage to water mains meant firefighters couldn't go in and put it out and eyewitness fire fighters have testified to it leaning and creaking. As well as losing strength when hot steel will also expand. NIST's study stands, conspiracy theorists who want it to be an inside job obsess with 7 because it "LOOKED LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION", but the appearance is deceptive, from the NORTH WTC7 didn't look badly damaged, but from the SOUTH: Conspiracy theorists don't want you to see the south because no burning building has ever been brought down by explosive initiated controlled demolition. Plenty of steel structures have failed due to fire: the steel framed part of TU Delft architectural faculty for example (other concrete parts fared better) : So with the weakness of Steel in mind and evidence of the energetic fires in WTC7: The lack of an audible or visible sequence of demolitions charges before it's collapse (which was captured on live television) is not surprising. Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer who works in the aerospace industry. He is not a structural fire engineer, he is not a steel construction industry expert by any stretch of the imagination. He neglects to mention that welds can fail, the crystals in the welds are more susceptible to fatigue than continuous metal. His job does not require his designs to be fireproofed. He is eminently qualified in the wrong subject.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 30, 2013 7:18:58 GMT -5
"NIST's study stands"
Yes it stands as a complete fabrication and a fraud. In another words, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Note you used the term "study", not investigation as NIST was tasked to perform. So then you also agree it was NOT an investigation. Further, there's not one thing you posted that changes the FACT that the NIST column 79 theory is impossible. You can post all the pictures you want, make any claims you want that it wasn't a controlled demolition, none of your dancing has anything to do with NIST's column 79 theory, much less lend any support to it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 30, 2013 7:29:14 GMT -5
No it's not impossible, lots of steel structures have collapsed due to weakening by fire. WTC7 included.
No burning building has ever been brought down by explosive initiated controlled demolition.
The intellectually crippled controlled demolition conspiracy theories about the towers from the likes of Gage's mob are a complete fabrication. Their unscientific unsubstantiated theories and claims have been discredited by a number of proficient qualified real experts including Zdenek Bazant, NIST, Brett Blanchard, Keith Seffen, Ryan Mackey, Mark Loizeaux, Colin Bailey, Charles Clifton, Ali Nadjai and many other true experts.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 30, 2013 7:45:47 GMT -5
"No it's not impossible, lots of steel structures have collapsed due to weakening by fire. WTC7 included."
The subject is NIST's column 79 theory. That's been PROVEN to be impossible. No steel framed structure has ever globally collapsed due to fire either before or after 9/11. Every expert on the planet agrees with that.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 30, 2013 7:54:31 GMT -5
NIST'S Reports are in one respect a lot like the Theory of evolution, yes there are pseudo scientific idiots that still try and try to deny, but they can't produce any real evidence to the contrary. Anyway, seeing as you like Szamboti and you don't like Structural Fire Engineers: Here's your latest hero getting his intellectually crippled arse kicked by a skeptical NASA Rocket scientist: More work by Mackey: sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 30, 2013 13:36:00 GMT -5
"NIST'S Reports are in one respect a lot like the Theory of evolution, yes there are pseudo scientific idiots that still try and try to deny, but they can't produce any real evidence to the contrary."
What on earth are you talking about? NIST was supposed to conduct an investigation into the collapse of the 3 towers on 9/11 and all it did was produce theories that have no basis in FACT and reality. You make zero sense. "seeing as you like Szamboti and you don't like Structural Fire Engineers"Always throwing s**t against the wall in the hope that it will stick. There is nothing personal that I like or dislike about anyone or any particular profession. "Here's your latest hero getting his intellectually crippled arse kicked by a skeptical NASA Rocket scientist"Yeah, great description that sounds like it comes from the mentality of an immature child. Tony Szamboti's work is supported by over 2,000 experts. Your opinion of Szamboti and over 2,000 experts is meaningless and irrelevant, as you are a nobody. It also has nothing to do with the proven FACT that NIST committed criminal fraud by modifying data, omitted critical structural components when it had access to the actual blueprints as revealed through FOIA requests and fabricated 2 different cartoons which both fail to match the collapse of WTC7 as seen on multiple videos. The last part does not take a rocket scientist to see the OBVIOUS, any child can tell there is no match. Perhaps you haven't reached the mental capacity of a child yet? Or maybe you need glasses or a new pair of eyes? Mackey is not a structural engineer, so why are you bringing him up? I thought only those in professions you decide are "qualified" are relevant. Yesterday it was civil engineers, today it's structural engineers, where do rocket scientists fit into your daily musical chair of acceptable scientific professions? As to this particular debate, Mackey is a smooth talker and Szamboti is a poor debater. To the lay person, it sounds like Mackey knows what he's talking about but in fact, he makes absurd assertions such as the collapse was "expected" without providing any sound reason, science and certainly no history to back it up. There's an entire critique of Mackey here (not that it matters to anything about 9/11): 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.htmlBut that's a side issue. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a small portion cannot crush a much larger portion below it by gravitational force alone. And certainly not at near free fall acceleration and without any "jolt" as Szamboti characterizes it and Mackey claims is "expected". And certainly not when the top portion is clearly seen disintegrating into dust peeling in every direction horizontally. Mackey should easily figure that out but instead defends NIST's theories which make no sense. In any case, over 2,000 experts disagree with Mackey.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 1, 2013 5:17:25 GMT -5
2000 experts ? I've seen their qualifications and experts they are not, not even one of them is a structural fire engineer.
Yes Ryan Mackey is a Rocket Scientist by profession, rocket science requires an understanding of FIRE and it's effects on metals. Szamboti isn't a structural engineer he's an aeronautical engineer, i.e. wing structures, fuselages, tail planes undercarriages, his job doesn't need an understanding of fire and it's effects on metals.
WTC7 was structurally damaged by debris ejected from WTC1's uncontrolled collapse and caught fire
Once the bowed columns of the twin towers failed and gave way the upper portion of the twin towers only needed to shear bolts & bend & strip the screw threads of the bolts that held the floor trusses of the structure below to the core they were the weakest link.
Real experts agree with NIST that once falling the force at which the upper block struck the lower block was the sum of it's mass x it's gravitational acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 1, 2013 8:23:01 GMT -5
"2000 experts ? I've seen their qualifications and experts they are not"
Coming from an anonymous nobody in an anonymous forum who rabidly supports the official narrative and questions nothing except those who question and contradict it, it means absolutely zero.
"Real experts agree"
that all 3 collapses were not natural collapses.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Oct 1, 2013 8:28:08 GMT -5
"all 3 collapses were not natural collapses."
I agree with that. Planes don't naturally fly into buildings
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 1, 2013 9:03:33 GMT -5
"all 3 collapses were not natural collapses." I agree with that. Planes don't naturally fly into buildings What plane flew into WTC7?
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Oct 1, 2013 9:13:57 GMT -5
"all 3 collapses were not natural collapses." I agree with that. Planes don't naturally fly into buildings What plane flew into WTC7? Parts and debris from the other crash(es). Again, not natural
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 1, 2013 9:39:38 GMT -5
What plane flew into WTC7? Parts and debris from the other crash(es). Again, not natural True, not natural. Buildings have never globally collapsed symmetrically at free fall/near free fall strictly due to fire, airplanes or both. As to "parts and debris", no airplane parts hit WTC7 unless you know something no one else knows. And as to debris, other than perhaps being the cause of the fire in WTC7, it did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7. And that's according to NIST. But even if it did, it cannot explain the symmetrical free fall collapse of WTC7 which would require that all 81 columns would have had to fail at the exact same time. So not natural? Absolutely. Actual cause? Indeterminable without a proper independent forensic criminal investigation.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 2, 2013 2:58:03 GMT -5
Whether steel in fire stands or falls is determined by the temperature profile and the effect of load. Temperature profile was high, effect of load was high, true experts including the designer Leslie Robertson agree that structural damage and fire brought down the twin towers and WTC7. WTC3 and St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church also fell that day after being hit by debris.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 2, 2013 7:47:42 GMT -5
<picture of a structure that looks like an outhouse on fire>
So is that supposed to be a picture of the twin towers? Maybe it's WTC7? No, I guess not.
"true experts including the designer Leslie Robertson agree that structural damage and fire brought down the twin towers and WTC7. WTC3"
Over 2,000 true experts disagree. And anyone with a functioning organ between his/her ears (including Leslie Robertson and as NIST's Shyam Sunder admitted) should be able to understand the simple logic that no steel framed building can collapse symmetrically in free fall or near free fall, unless ALL the columns fail simultaneously for each floor and in sequence top down. In the case of WTC7, that's 81 columns. In the case of the twin towers, I don't have the exact number of columns offhand (there are core and perimeter columns) but I'm sure it's also a significant number. No one needs to be an expert to understand that, just use simple logic.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 3, 2013 11:12:47 GMT -5
When caught in a lie you change the subject before telling more lies.
Steel is maleable, all steel buildings are susceptible to fire hence the need for fireproofing. WTC7 was a uniquely designed building:
Only two - three hours of protection yet seven hours of fire. Doesn't need a nuclear engineer to be able to work out that it fell because of structural damage + fire.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 3, 2013 13:20:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 3, 2013 19:15:57 GMT -5
There you go again, another straw man.
81 columns didn't need to fail at once, the interior had already failed with the penthouse collapses, the exterior was damaged with a big top to bottom gash, so there wasn't 81 columns standing when the roof line fell. Only the exterior was still standing, and overloaded, bearing the weight of the remaining parts of the roof. All the remaining columns were overloaded, south side of the remainder failed first, then the north side, which is why it leaned south as it fell and why it blocked one road, partially blocked another and hit Fiterman Hall.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 3, 2013 20:38:42 GMT -5
"81 columns didn't need to fail at once"
True, it could have been a miracle. Miracles can happen, after all wasn't the world created in 6 days?
"the interior had already failed with the penthouse collapses, the exterior was damaged with a big top to bottom gash, so there wasn't 81 columns standing when the roof line fell. Only the exterior was still standing, and overloaded, bearing the weight of the remaining parts of the roof. All the remaining columns were overloaded, south side of the remainder failed first, then the north side, which is why it leaned south as it fell"
That's a nice story. Did you come up with that all by yourself or did Santa tell you that? Oh wait I know, Shyam Sunder came down the chimney and explained it to you. Did he have a red outfit and a white beard and go "ho, ho, ho" at the end of the story?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 11, 2013 8:33:50 GMT -5
Can YOU Spot The Difference?What's the difference? Those plates welded to the girder. They are called stiffeners. Why aren’t the stiffeners shown in the version above from the NIST report when they are shown in the actual WTC7 drawings? Why the stiffeners are so important:Stiffener plates are critically important. They allow a girder to transfer loads to a wider footprint (bearing surface) and increase its ability to resist failure. The stiffeners not only allow the load to be spread wider, but if the girder could shift (walk-off) as NIST alleges, they strengthen the web and bottom flanges. So if the girder web could somehow reach the edge of the 12” seat, the flanges would not fold under an offset load. NIST claims only 5.5” was necessary. They later revised this to 6.25”, but with the stiffeners the distance required would be approximately 10” before the girder could leave the seat. The stiffeners would make the type of failure that NIST supposed in their thermal expansion hypothesis completely impossible because the beams could not expand more than 4.75" no matter how hot they got. The reason the expansion is limited is because at just above 600C the beams shorten due to sagging more than they expand. The stiffener plates as shown in the WTC7 drawings were installed on the key girder that NIST claims initiated an unprecedented global progressive collapse of the building. NIST did not include them in their analysis. Thus if the girder can’t walk-off the seat it does not fall onto floor 12 and likewise floor 12 doesn’t collapse. The whole progressive collapse scenario evaporates without an initiating event. The stiffeners are the Achilles Heel of the NIST conclusion. They are truly the “game changers” described by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. Many other engineers agree. This walk-off is a pure, unadulterated fantasy. 911blogger.com/news/2013-10-09/can-you-spot-difference
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 11, 2013 8:59:47 GMT -5
"The stiffeners are the Achilles Heel of the NIST conclusion."
That's debatable. More impossible is the FACT that WTC7 could not collapse symmetrically at free fall acceleration unless all 81 beams failed at the exact same time. Fires simply cannot cause the failure of 81 beams at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 11, 2013 14:06:34 GMT -5
The interior fell first because of the penthouse collapses pancaking the floors inside, without an interior to support the roofline the exterior gave way, south side first, with the south side unable to offer any support the north east and west faces fell, south. One road was blocked, one road was partially blocked, one building was so badly damaged by being hit by WTC7 that it was subsequently demolished.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 11, 2013 21:19:47 GMT -5
"The interior fell first because of the penthouse collapses pancaking the floors inside, without an interior to support the roofline the exterior gave way, south side first, with the south side unable to offer any support the north east and west faces fell, south."
So either you saw this for yourself or you got that from the NIST theory. I highly doubt you have the mental capacity to come up with such a fanciful theory all by yourself. Unfortunately, there's is not one person on earth who could possibly corroborate the above and there is not single piece of evidence, video or otherwise that lends support to the above theory. A collapsing penthouse is far from evidence the above is true or even possible. NIST certainly has no evidence that the above happened other than 2 alleged computer simulation cartoons they created that supports this theory. The problem with both cartoons, among many, is that neither resembles any of the actual videos of the collapses. So one is left to accept such a fanciful theory on faith or not.
However, their theory begins with the failure of a single column (79) which has also been PROVEN beyond the shadow of any doubt that it could have never failed due to thermal expansion as NIST described in their report. Also PROVEN was the FACT that NIST committed blatant fraud and misrepresented (read criminally) the actual drawing for the material structure of column 79 in order to try to make their theory work. NIST had the exact same access to the correct drawings David Cole did when he obtained the Frankel drawings via a FOIA request in 2012. So NIST engaged in forgery, plain and simple.
So much for accepting a criminal fraud's theory on faith.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 12, 2013 9:39:21 GMT -5
Excuse me, it's obvious from the penthouse collapse what happened. It's obvious from live recordings of it's collapse that no explosives were going off, as they'd have been heard by the microphones. It's obvious from First Responder Crowley's reaction of surprise that there were no explosives going off in it's collapse as she'd have spun round at the first bang.
I know how dearly you wish it to have been blown up, but it wasn't. There's no reason for it to have been blown up.
It was on fire. It was structurally damaged. It burned for longer than fireproofing is rated for. Firefighters pulled out because it was leaning and bulging and they could not fight the fires inside it properly.
If the US government had wanted documents in that building destroyed, there's these things called file shredders which destroy paper, and hard drives can be wiped magnetically, or destroyed with hammers. There's NO reason for WTC7's collapse to be an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 12, 2013 11:47:30 GMT -5
"it's obvious from the penthouse collapse what happened."
There's nothing "obvious" about it, except to those who want it to be "obvious". Without supporting/corroborating EVIDENCE, it's nothing more than a theory, a fictional and impossible one at that. In fact, if it was so "obvious", Danny Jowenko would have immediately said that because the penthouse collapsed, the inside of WTC7 must have collapsed first. Instead, he immediately said it was a controlled demolition, and added he was absolutely certain. Same is true for all the people in the recent poll who saw the collapse of WTC7 for the first time. Not one decided it was "obvious" the inside collapsed first. That you claim that it was "obvious" is complete fantasy.
Furthermore, the free fall collapse as well as the videos (visual EVIDENCE), the missing stiffeners (a clear FORGERY) and the missing sheer studs (another clearly deliberate omission), all directly contradict the column 79 theory and NIST's computer simulation cartoons. Any one of these FACTS contradicts the NIST theory, never mind ALL of them.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with the NIST fraud or the manner in which WTC7 collapsed, even if all your apologist hypotheses were true. It also means that since NIST's theory is a PROVEN fraud, we're left with not even a fake investigation, never mind a real one. And it also means that those responsible for the NIST investigation should all be arrested and charged with criminal fraud (see 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3)).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 12, 2013 12:18:30 GMT -5
Video footage shows the penthouse collapse into the building, the building wasn't designed with this scenario in mind. Visual evidence is of a building on fire without structural integrity giving way to load after seven hours of fire.
There's no evidence of controlled demolition, no motive for controlled demolition. The 2.25 seconds of free fall you refer to was followed by a deceleration and slower rate of collapse, this is not characteristic of explosive demolition. A road was blocked and Fiterman hall was damaged beyond repair by WTC7 hitting it. This is not characteristic of controlled demolition. Debris from WTC7 also leant against the Verizon building, again not characteristic of controlled demolition.
Controlled demolitions are controlled to prevent damage to the surroundings. WTC 7 damaged it's surroundings. WTC 2 & 1 damaged their surroundings.
There is no motive for WTC7 to be destroyed, it's collapse is down to the damage and fire it endured after the twin towers collapsed.
If WTC7 had been the base of a conspiracy, file shredders and hard drive wiping techniques exist which would have destroyed evidence. Demolishing a building with explosives, in daytime, in a city populated by millions is a no no.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 12, 2013 13:08:39 GMT -5
Round and round we go, never addressing the deliberate NIST FRAUD but always supporting and parroting its nonsensical and impossible theories. Why are you not questioning the FACT that NIST doctored the Frankel drawings and deliberately omitted the stiffener plates? Why are you not questioning that NIST deliberately omitted numerous sheer studs that appear in the drawings and were used to secure beams and girders? Why are you not questioning that NIST deliberately modified data? Why are you not questioning that NIST refuses to provide any relevant information they used to arrive at their theories and cites the reason that doing so would "endanger public safety"? Why are you not questioning one single thing about the NIST report? Why do you swallow their impossible THEORY and incessantly regurgitate it as fact?
"Video footage shows the penthouse collapse into the building"
The video footage shows the penthouse collapsed, period. No one is arguing that because that's what's on video so it's irrefutable. It doesn't follow though that the entire building collapsed internally before the rest of the building budged. In fact, if that's what really happened, then the NIST cartoons that show the roof line caving in at a sharp angle and the walls caving inwardly would likely be what would have appeared on all the videos of the collapse. Unfortunately, not one video shows anything of the kind. Not one video supports this ridiculous concocted theory. Concocted using deliberate contradictions, omissions and forgery.
"The 2.25 seconds of free fall you refer to was followed by ..."
It's irrelevant what the free fall was "followed by". The FREE FALL is what is incredibly relevant and that could NOT have occurred unless all 81 columns of WTC7 were taken out at the exact same time. But that's NOT what NIST wrote, they claim the collapse was initiated by a SINGLE column failure, column 79, which was located in one corner of the building. And you deliberately want to skip the FREE FALL because you know full well it makes NIST's theory impossible. As much as you pretend to be, you're not that dumb. And that's why what's really obvious is that you have some kind of stake or agenda in supporting the official narrative, no matter how impossible it has been revealed to be.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 12, 2013 15:49:50 GMT -5
Motive ? None Physical evidence of explosives ? None Video evidence of explosives ? None. Evidence of controlled demolition ? None.
You can parrot the official ae9/11'truth' narrative till the cows come home, but you have NOTHING.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 12, 2013 16:22:18 GMT -5
Motive ? None Physical evidence of explosives ? None Video evidence of explosives ? None. Evidence of controlled demolition ? None. You can parrot the official ae9/11'truth' narrative till the cows come home, but you have NOTHING. As usual, you skipped every point I made because you can't contradict any of it. There is no "official ae9/11'truth' narrative" other than that they have a petition demanding an investigation signed by 2,077 verified architects and engineers and another 17,592 verified signatories, and those numbers keep on growing. But there's nothing "official" about it. Official can only come from officials. As to a "narrative", their "narrative" is that the official narrative is a massive LIE perpetrated by criminal frauds and they proved it using EVIDENCE of doctored drawings published by NIST, among many other findings. So their "narrative" is not a "narrative" anyway, it's absolute FACT.
|
|