|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 4, 2013 16:49:56 GMT -5
Hello everyone, it's good to know that we have a forum where we can continue discussions as Yahoo abruptly terminated their forums. I started this thread because 9/11 was the most significant event of our lifetimes and the subject needs to be kept alive because government and its puppet media are not willing to tell us the truth about 9/11. They will not tell us the truth because almost all of government's agenda is based on government's version of what happened and if the truth is not what we're told, then its agenda would be akin to the "emperor's new clothes". We do know that the lies and deceptions about 9/11 are so flagrant that the truth exposes gross criminal fraud. That fraud has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including Americans and the complete decimation of all the protections guaranteed by our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. In the future, I will post anything and everything relevant to 9/11. Not everything I find is necessarily going to be fact since some of it will be opinions of those whose opinions I respect. I fully expect and encourage you to post your opinions, whether they agree with or oppose others' opinions including mine of course. To start the discussion, I am re-posting links to 4 videos that exposes NIST's contrived theory that WTC7 collapsed as a result of column 79 being dislodged due to thermal expansion. Part 1 - NIST and WTC7 - Shear Ignorance Part 2 - NIST and WTC7 - The Expanding Lie Part 3 - NIST and WTC7 - Tangled Webs Part 4 - NIST and WTC7 - maladmiNISTration
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 18:09:45 GMT -5
good to see you here, Bob. Yes, it is lucky a group was thrown together for us to continue posting our ideas about the world. I'll be interested in participating in your discussions on 9/11 as I did as "Bunny" on Yahoo. I've heard plenty of anecdotal and scientific evidence that gives me reason to believe we have been lied to on a huge scale.
|
|
|
Post by badmedicine on Mar 4, 2013 19:28:53 GMT -5
good to see you here, Bob. Yes, it is lucky a group was thrown together for us to continue posting our ideas about the world. I'll be interested in participating in your discussions on 9/11 as I did as "Bunny" on Yahoo. I've heard plenty of anecdotal and scientific evidence that gives me reason to believe we have been lied to on a huge scale. I don't usually get too involved with conspiracy discussions, mostly because there's so much BS to sort through that it's near impossible to put together some semblance of the truth. In the case of 9/11 however, I believe there was a lot more evil afoot than we'll likely ever know.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 4, 2013 20:15:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 22:16:34 GMT -5
There are so many good sites available where you can get real information about 9/11. Funny, before I read this post, I picked up a link on my mouse to add. I wanted to ask if you'd read Webster Griffin Tarpley, and I googled his name and found this great review of his book "Synthetic Terrorism, Made in the USA" by a former CIA Officer. I think this might be one of the links you offered, above. www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20061024220731799
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 4, 2013 22:29:00 GMT -5
I never actually read Tarpley's book but I did read a summary. I also often read the 9/11 Truth website, it is one of the sites I did not originally list so thanks for adding it to the list.
There are several articles on the FBI's manufactured terrorism. In fact, most of the terrorist acts since 9/11 and some prior to 9/11 were concocted by the FBI. They often look for some pathetic patsy who claims he wants to commit a terrorist act but does not have the brain capacity and the tools to carry it out. So in comes the "helpful" FBI and helps the poor sucker with a plan and the tools. And of course, he's caught and the FBI comes up smelling like roses and ergo, the FBI gives themselves yet another raison d'etre (a reason for its existence).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 23:09:35 GMT -5
Please excuse my error, the correct title of Tarpley's book is "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 23:16:03 GMT -5
I never actually read Tarpley's book but I did read a summary. most of the terrorist acts since 9/11 and some prior to 9/11 were concocted by the FBI. They often look for some pathetic patsy who claims he wants to commit a terrorist act but does not have the brain capacity and the tools to carry it out. So in comes the "helpful" FBI and helps the poor sucker with a plan and the tools. I think the book is quite thick, lol. I have not read it either, but have read an elaborate play by play from an online friend who paid it much scrutiny. The scenario you paint with the FBI is accurate from what I've gathered over the years by reading. I also remember reading about how their forensic labs, which were supposed to be beyond impressive, were a sham.
|
|
|
Post by badmedicine on Mar 4, 2013 23:24:22 GMT -5
I never actually read Tarpley's book but I did read a summary. I also often read the 9/11 Truth website, it is one of the sites I did not originally list so thanks for adding it to the list. There are several articles on the FBI's manufactured terrorism. In fact, most of the terrorist acts since 9/11 and some prior to 9/11 were concocted by the FBI. They often look for some pathetic patsy who claims he wants to commit a terrorist act but does not have the brain capacity and the tools to carry it out. So in comes the "helpful" FBI and helps the poor sucker with a plan and the tools. And of course, he's caught and the FBI comes up smelling like roses and ergo, the FBI gives themselves yet another raison d'etre (a reason for its existence). The "agents provocateurs" scam...one of the oldest tricks in the book for keeping public paranoia (& therefore support) high. Set up some supposed act of terrorism & then miraculously save the day at the last minute.
|
|
|
Post by cheknurpulse on Mar 5, 2013 12:16:43 GMT -5
There are a lot of holes in the story behind 9/11. I could maybe understand ONE building coming down like it did. But both? And the Pentagon tape does not show a 747 hitting the building. What ever it was, it was moving way to fast for a 747. And it was nothing but a while blur. And it left no wing marks on the building. But it will be like the Kennedy assassination, we will never know the whole truth.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 10, 2013 14:55:18 GMT -5
Those are not good sites. debunking911.com is much better. Your sites fail to take into account that steel is a maleable metal made up of crystals which expand and contract depending on temperature. At temperatures above 300 degrees C those crystals are vibrating quite nicely and the metal becomes softer, by 800 degrees C it's tensile strength has been significantly reduced by 80 percent after which tensile strength continues to degrade up to the melting point of 1540 degrees C. For this reason steel is not used in jet engines as the turbine blades would expand in flight (single crystal super alloys are used instead). Single crystal super alloys are not used in construction due to their high cost. Facts on steel: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htmDo not listen to the 9/11 con(spiracy) artists. Listen to the experts.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 10, 2013 16:52:04 GMT -5
"Do not listen to the 9/11 con(spiracy) artists. Listen to the experts."
If you read the first 4 out of 5 sites I listed you would know those are sites where many EXPERTS in many different fields of science, technology and other disciplines explain in meticulous detail how the official CONSPIRACY THEORY is full of lies and distortions. The first and biggest problem with "debunking" sites is that they admit their ONLY purpose to try to contradict all those who question the official 9/11 narrative. They themselves don't question anything government and its puppet media sold the world about 9/11.
If you yourself do not question what a constantly lying government tells you about 9/11 then you are nothing more than a mindless sponge. Worse, by telling people not to "listen" to those who question the official 9/11 narrative, you are telling everyone to be blind, deaf and dumb to any possible question just because you take that position. Anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence would automatically question everything told by government and its puppet media because those entities have been proven to be a constant source of propaganda based on lies and distortions.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 10, 2013 19:26:52 GMT -5
I'm familiar with those 'experts' and they are not what they purport to be, and certainly not experts in the field of structural fire engineering. For example conspiracy hero Kevin Ryan is actually a water tester sacked from Underwriters Laboratories (after misrepresenting himself and his employer) Steven Jones (nuclear physicist specialising in muon catalysed fusion who was suspended from BYU for breaching their terms on Peer Reviewed Papers, rather than face a review and dismissal he chose to retire) Richard Gage (architect not engineer). There's more but it's 25 past midnight here in Britain and I need my sleep.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 10, 2013 23:53:34 GMT -5
I'm familiar with those 'experts' and they are not what they purport to be, and certainly not experts in the field of structural fire engineering. For example conspiracy hero Kevin Ryan is actually a water tester sacked from Underwriters Laboratories (after misrepresenting himself and his employer) Steven Jones (nuclear physicist specialising in muon catalysed fusion who was suspended from BYU for breaching their terms on Peer Reviewed Papers, rather than face a review and dismissal he chose to retire) Richard Gage (architect not engineer). There's more but it's 25 past midnight here in Britain and I need my sleep. Thanks for that information about "conspiracy heroes" you are "familiar" with. So in your opinion, there are over 2,000 of these people who are not really what they purport to be that you're "familiar with"? You know them personally? And who may I ask are the "experts" at the website you recommended? I went through that website and I don't even see the name of one person, much less hundreds or thousands. debunking911.com But don't answer until you've had a good night's sleep and after you've had your morning tea. I wouldn't want you to answer all these tough questions or miss any names with their credentials while you're still sleepy.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 11, 2013 5:50:33 GMT -5
I don't drink tea, I drink water or fruit juice first thing. Any expert who denies the metallurgical properties of steel in fire is not an expert. Doesn't matter if you have 6000 idiots making absurd claims. Metallurgy is metallurgy, and steel in fire is the key issue here. Steel is elastic and becomes more elastic in fire.
The fires started by the jet fuel set the contents of the twin towers on fire, the impact of the jets destroyed part of the structure and exposed steel by damaging the fireproofing, the contents heated up the steel, the steel was under load and sagged due to its reduced strength. The steel of the outer walls was buckling inwardly by over a metre before the structure gave way.
When a column is bent inwards under load it's concave side is under compression, it's convex side under tension, the convex side begins to tear then the load above falls down like a hammer.
So you have a load + the speed it is moving at striking the floors below with kinetic force well above that which the structure was designed to handle. The weakest components, the bolts which hold everything together are sheared. Large sections of the outer walls break away and fall from the building towards others. Every other building in and around the WTC complex is hit and damaged, some catch fire. WTC 3 is cut in two and collapses. WTC 7 is gouged by spandrels from WTC 1 and catches fire.
WTC 7 burns for seven hours, firefighters cannot fight the fire as water mains are damaged. They pull out. Structure inside weakened by the fire gives way the upper penthouse falls into the structure taking the remainder of structural integrity out. Structure then creaks and gives way and collapses.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2013 7:54:38 GMT -5
"Any expert who denies the metallurgical properties of steel in fire is not an expert."
True and what does that have to do with anything?
"Doesn't matter if you have 6000 idiots making absurd claims."
Right and again, what does that have to do with anything. What "6,000 idiots" are making claims?
The rest of your post is your opinion. Thanks, I already heard a lot of it and there are still an overwhelming amount of problems and huge gaping holes in the official account, not to mention it's replete with criminal fraud and obfuscation. So as a result, there are tons of question that need to be answered that have never been answered or even investigated.
But your response ignores my question posed to you and that says (without your admission) that you can't name one single person who contributes to the site you recommended. In other words, the contributors at "debunking911" are ANONYMOUS but in your opinion, what they wrote is trustworthy and the work of credentialed experts, supported by over 2,000 experts who signed their names is not to be trusted (according to you because the anonymous website is better than all the websites created by these named experts).
I started this thread by posting the link to 4 videos that show in detail why NIST's THEORY that WTC7 collapsed as a result of the failure of column 79 is sheer made up fiction based on NIST's manufacture of data and failure to include structural components that appear in the blueprints. So if NIST cannot support their theory that the failure of column 79 caused the collapse of WTC7 and they did not investigate why it actually collapsed (since that's all they offered), then the NIST report is a FRAUD and obviously untrustworthy. And it also means that the collapse of WTC7 was actually initiated by something else.
Did you view the 4 videos?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 11, 2013 11:41:37 GMT -5
How many steel industry metallurgists have you contacted during your research ? Amongst the experts I consulted was John Dowling, the man who commissioned the Cardington Fire tests at the Building's Research Institute Cardington who was chief metallurgist for British Steel then Corus Steel (Now part of Tata group). Your 4 videos are wrong. Sorry but they misrepresent the facts and the physics, they're fakes. NIST's report is not fiction btw it is supported by all major steel makers structural fire engineers and the steel in fire forum (an industry working group fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/index.html who conducted their own investigation into 9/11 back in 2002. Please investigate the elastic modulus of Steel (Young's Modulus) to understand it's performance in fire, consider the effect of the jet airliners, the mechanical damage they caused to the twin towers and the fires they caused. Consider the firefighter who stated on camera that he believed WTC 7 was going to collapse, "There's no water to fight the fire. You see where the white smoke is, you see this thing leaning like this, it's got to come down, there's no way to stop it, because you have to go in there to put out the fire and already the structural integrity is not there". Consider Steve Spak's footage of the fire. It was fully involved in fire on all floors. It was mechanically damaged on the south side with a gash from top to bottom. No building of that type has ever taken that kind of damage and survived. University of Manchester's study: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htmUniversity of Sydney's study: sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtmlSee how the debris fell away from the twin towers in an uncontrolled manner ? sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/latest/wtc_collapse2.jpgThat's because the impact floors lost structural integrity and the floors above fell down like a pile driver. Bazant's paper from 2002 is a pretty good bit of research too. Richard Gage of the A&E9/11 truth is a career Conspiracist, 21% of that organisation's budget pays his wages. He's a dis-informationist a liar, a hoaxer after your money. I'm giving up my time for free to tell you the real truth. It's up to you whether you're interested in the facts or their fiction.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2013 14:31:19 GMT -5
"How many steel industry metallurgists have you contacted during your research?"
Personally none.
"Your 4 videos are wrong. Sorry but they misrepresent the facts and the physics, they're fakes."
They're not my videos, I just posted the links and I reviewed all of them. So what basis do you have for claiming they're wrong and that they misrepresent the facts and the physics and that they're fakes? Please provide details if you can, not just a summary of your opinion.
"NIST's report is not fiction btw it is supported by all major steel makers structural fire engineers and the steel in fire forum"
Well it is thoroughly contradicted in many, many different ways by other experts and NIST itself contradicted its own initial report in its final report. Furthermore, their column 79 theory is nothing more than a theory unsupported by fact, evidence and science so it certainly isn't fact.
The rest of your links do not address the collapse of WTC7 and do not question anything in terms of the official 9/11 narrative. By only supporting it without question is disingenuous and does not offer anything to those who question the narrative.
"Richard Gage of the A&E9/11 truth is a career Conspiracist, 21% of that organisation's budget pays his wages. He's a dis-informationist a liar, a hoaxer after your money."
I'm sorry but I have not given Richard Gage one single dime of my money and if you are right, then why do over 2,000 experts agree with him? And why have many others contributed their research as well? Are you implying they're all disinformation liars, hoaxers and after my money?
What about the FACT that the US government version is full of lies, distortions and disinformation? Have you questioned anything it has sold as truth?
Furthermore, you're still ignoring my original questions about the site YOU recommended. Why are you evading the issue? If you are so confident that the site you recommended is "better" than all the sites I provided links to, why are you avoiding supporting it?
"I'm giving up my time for free to tell you the real truth."
Thank you for your generosity but I have no clue who you are and you have not made your credentials available so anything you have to say on this subject is taken for what it is from an anonymous source. So far, your credibility is highly questionable mostly since you failed to answer any of my questions regarding the website you recommended.
"It's up to you whether you're interested in the facts or their fiction."
I'm only interested in facts and what makes logical sense. The only "fiction" that I have come across that means anything to me is the official conspiracy theory. I have read many fictitious claims which I have discounted and most of the fictitious claims come from government sources and those that support the official theory. And FYI, I'm not interested in theory, I'm only interested in evidence based research and the valid science that supports it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 11, 2013 17:31:04 GMT -5
No expert has disproved the NIST report, all true experts support it. The two thousand people who agree with him are not experts, they're frauds.
If you're truly into facts, learn about metallurgy learn about viscoplastic creep in steel, learn what really happened to the twin towers instead of this conspiracy BS about thermite, molten metal, explosive squibs and loose change etc.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 11, 2013 17:50:51 GMT -5
Video 1 omits the collapse of the upper penthouse ( ) into WTC7 and fails to show the south side damage & fire, omits sound and misrepresents the entire collapse as being a 'controlled demo' fails to mention the damage it did to Fitterman Hall when it fell onto it. Video 2 & 3 omits the weakening effect of fire on steel, concentrating only on thermal expansion (what about it's 80% decrease in structural strength that goes along with thermal expansion?!) what about all the structure torn out by WTC 1 debris ? Video 4 also omits the south side fires, the top to bottom tear in the building made by WTC 1 debris, and the collapse of the upper penthouse that preceded the rest of the collapse, and the audio track of the collapse which proves no explosions took place prior to collapse. Here: Damage Damage filmed by NYC news station, shortly before collapse, extensive fire belching smoke from west and east faces of WTC 7 FDNY firefighter predicts collapse Does he look like he's part of a conspiracy to you ? Loads of his mates died that day.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2013 18:07:18 GMT -5
"No expert has disproved the NIST report, all true experts support it."
That is a completely false assertion on both claims. I asked you to provide detail on what you believe is "wrong" in the 4 videos, how and what you believe is a misrepresentation of the facts and the physics and how they're fakes and you failed to provide one single piece of detail. All you've done so far is provide your blanket opinion with nothing that backs it up.
"The two thousand people who agree with him are not experts, they're frauds."
Again that is not a claim that has any basis in reality, much less fact. Many of the experts are quite well known and are highly credible sources. Some of those experts are those who were in high government positions who have quite a bit of inside knowledge. All you're doing yet again is providing your opinion with nothing else.
"If you're truly into facts, learn about metallurgy learn about viscoplastic creep in steel, learn what really happened to the twin towers instead of this conspiracy BS about thermite, molten metal, explosive squibs and loose change etc."
Thanks for your opinion but as I said, there is nothing you have offered so far that has any credibility. You are no more than an anonymous poster who cannot support any of the claims you make, some of which are totally absurd on their face. And furthermore, you still have not answered any of my questions regarding the site you recommended or anything else that supports any of your wild claims, so I have to assume that you are deliberately evading these issues because you have zero confidence in your own claims.
You have not shown that you question anything that has been sold as the official narrative and only attack those who question it. You have shown so far that your only agenda is to discredit those who question the official narrative or to try to stop those who question it from reaching out to any research that contradicts it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2013 18:12:00 GMT -5
I posted this before I had a chance to see your next post so I take back the following statement:
"I asked you to provide detail on what you believe is "wrong" in the 4 videos, how and what you believe is a misrepresentation of the facts and the physics and how they're fakes and you failed to provide one single piece of detail. All you've done so far is provide your blanket opinion with nothing that backs it up."
And I will address your points in another post
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 19:22:16 GMT -5
Webster Griffin Tarpley:
From 9/11: Synthetic Terror, Made in USA
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 19:26:50 GMT -5
Webster Griffin Tarpley:
From 9/11: Synthetic Terror, Made in USA
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 19:29:08 GMT -5
so much anger and indignation that the subject became more than taboo, it became unpatriotic.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2013 19:44:32 GMT -5
"Video 1 omits the collapse of the upper penthouse ( ) into WTC7 and fails to show the south side damage & fire, omits sound and misrepresents the entire collapse as being a 'controlled demo' fails to mention the damage it did to Fitterman Hall when it fell onto it."
None of the above has any relevance to what video 1 asserts. The entire video is based on NIST's theory about column 79, about the missing shear studs that NIST contradicted between its first and final reports and how NIST's theory is unsupported by the facts based on the blueprint of WTC7 and materials. There is not one word in the video about a controlled demo, so you are basically lying. If you believe there's anything in the video about a controlled demo, please cite the position where you heard it in minutes and seconds.
"Video 2 & 3 omits the weakening effect of fire on steel, concentrating only on thermal expansion (what about it's 80% decrease in structural strength that goes along with thermal expansion?!) what about all the structure torn out by WTC 1 debris ?"
Videos 2 and 3 are about the thermal expansion of the columns and specifically how, according to NIST, they expanded to the point where they caused column 79 to walk off its seat and collapse. There is a physics equation along with a spreadsheet that the author uses that measures thermal expansion of those particular columns. The author shows how the NIST theory about the expansion is based on a modified and incorrect equation and how NIST failed to take into account structural materials that would have affected expansion, the fact that the beams had multiple attachments and modified data to try to fit its column 79 theory. So there's nothing you posted above that is relevant to all those points.
"Video 4 also omits the south side fires, the top to bottom tear in the building made by WTC 1 debris, and the collapse of the upper penthouse that preceded the rest of the collapse, and the audio track of the collapse which proves no explosions took place prior to collapse."
Video 4 has nothing to do with the above. It summarizes and elaborates on the findings in videos 1 through 3. The video also claims that NIST later corrected one of their critical numbers but failed to modify their report based on their correction. And further admitted that it juxtaposed 2 numbers in different sections of their report but again failed to modify their report based on their correction.
So to summarize, the videos show in great detail how NIST committed FRAUD in their invention of the column 79 theory. It has nothing to do with controlled demolition, debris, fire, presumptions of collapse or anything else that you focused on. So in my opinion, it seems you either didn't watch the videos, watched only segments of it or are just making things up. But at least you took a crack at trying to discredit them.
The problem again is that there is a huge amount of EVIDENCE that shows that the official story is based on FRAUD but rather than question any of the official story, even one or two things, your agenda is to try to discredit those who have gone to great lengths to show in detail how the official story is based on lies and obfuscations. But you don't even have to try to discredit anyone to know that the official story is just a theory and is based on lies, both the 9/11 Commission members and NIST itself have admitted that their reports are based on lies. In NIST's case, only that they made "mistakes" but have not changed their theory when those "mistakes" were corrected.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 12, 2013 5:01:45 GMT -5
No those videos omit facts, misrepresent the details by only showing part of the picture and speculate.
Speaking metallurgically, Column 79 would have lost 80% of it's strength in the fire, even a slight deflection by thermal expansion of a surrounding structural member (also weakened by 80%) would have reduced the cross sectional load bearing area and put part of that column into tension exposing it to shear forces as well as compression. It's no surprise at all that WTC7 collapsed.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2013 8:25:00 GMT -5
"No those videos omit facts, misrepresent the details by only showing part of the picture and speculate."Again, the videos are about NIST's theory that column 79 was pushed off its seat due to the thermal expansion of other columns, collapsed and as a result, the entire building collapsed. If any facts were omitted or misrepresentation of details by showing part of the picture, that describes NIST and the authors of the video clearly showed what facts NIST omitted. If there was any speculation, it was NIST that speculated that the initiation of the collapse was a direct result of the failure of column 79 for which NIST had no evidence. NIST did NOT come up with any other explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Nothing you posted so far has anything to do with NIST's column 79 theory. "Speaking metallurgically, Column 79 would have lost 80% of it's strength in the fire, even a slight deflection by thermal expansion of a surrounding structural member (also weakened by 80%) would have reduced the cross sectional load bearing area and put part of that column into tension exposing it to shear forces as well as compression."Thermal expansion is addressed in the video. If you actually saw it, you would know. According to calculations, the temperature NIST chose for the thermal expansion of the column that allegedly pushed column 79 off its seat is 600 degrees, no more, no less. The reason NIST chose that temperature (without providing any evidence whatsoever that it was true) is that a lower temperature would have resulted in an expansion of less than what was required to move column 79 off its seat. And a higher temperature would have caused the columns to lose their rigidity and therefore their capability to push column 79 off its seat. So what you say above really has nothing to do with what NIST said in their report but does have something to do with thermal expansion. Close but no cigar. "It's no surprise at all that WTC7 collapsed."Actually even NIST first claimed they couldn't get a handle on why WTC7 collapsed when they published their first report. They didn't even address the collapse of WTC7. After they published their final report, they said it was "obvious" and proceeded to explain it via their fanciful column 79 concoction. So while it may not be a "surprise" to you, it certainly was to NIST initially and they are experts (albeit frauds) while you seem to know very little or nothing about this subject. Of course many other experts believe a natural collapse of WTC7 in that manner (near free fall and in its footprint) due to office fire is impossible. No manner what you want to believe, the FACT is that NIST invented a theory (about column 79). Inventing a theory is not the same as a forensic criminal investigation. Standard NFPA protocol is used to investigate building fires. NIST did not follow any NFPA protocol or any other standard protocol in their alleged "investigation". That is a FACT, not theory. This was made clear by Erik Lawyer, a firefighter with many years of experience (see 2nd video): firefightersfor911truth.org/So the FACT is that NO INVESTIGATION of any kind was conducted by NIST. All NIST tried to do is to try to come up with a reason why WTC7 collapsed. So they made one up and worked for years to come up with a computer simulation that fit their theory. However an FIOA request to make the computer program available for peer review was turned down because NIST said it would "endanger public safety". Therefore, NIST's theory can never be peer reviewed and as such has basis in established science.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 12, 2013 11:00:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2013 11:41:29 GMT -5
The fires in that building would have easily generated air temperatures of 1000 degrees C. They were unfought and burned for seven hours. First, that's not true at all and there is NO evidence that such temperatures were reached. Office fires generally do not exceed 700-800 degrees if even that much. Second, your point has nothing to do with NIST's column 79 theory even if it is true and in fact would contradict NIST's theory because that temperature would be way too hot and would render the beams incapable of pushing column 79 off its seat. So once again you haven't made any case that might contradict what was presented in the 4 videos. Changing the subject does not address this particular topic.
|
|