IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nist Wtc7 Press Release Thurs. Aug. 21, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 & 1A

dMz
post Aug 21 2008, 03:58 PM
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



"Cause" vs. effect:

Post #16:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746305

"My lingering question is still what is the exact mechanism that enables gravitation (falling debris) to ignite any fire? I didn't see any "flaming debris" in the photos or video, but there was hella dust and paper, plus that one famous passport. I've seen lightning strikes ignite fires many times, but gravity?

Meteorites, satellites, and "space junk" can do such things, but they "fall" much further and faster through Earth's atmosphere and gravitational field."-- dMole, 10 Jul 2008


From this morning's NIST WTC7 video:



EDIT: Note the evidence of fire on 4 floors, not the NIST-claimed 10 in their video capture below:


Ummmm, OK... rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Still waiting...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 21 2008, 04:25 PM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Ummm, why doesn't the NIST computer simulation video look anything like this at the end???

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2873776548.html

[Hey look- 2 lines spraying water above! NYC must have found time to fix that broken water main during the WTC7 collapse. rolleyes.gif ]

From post #5:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10742057

EDIT: NIST == Proof by Xbox360 [I know- it's actually LSDYNA, but GIGO... ]

EDIT2: We've seen this one before. Related Purdue simulation thread is at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7335
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
1morepromethean
post Aug 21 2008, 05:03 PM
Post #43





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 4
Joined: 20-August 08
Member No.: 3,773



http://www.onemorepromethean.com/2008/08/2...lding-collapse/

Just thought I'd mention we've done a post on this (ridiculous) report.

If anyone finds video footage of the webcast, let me know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 21 2008, 06:08 PM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



MP3 audio of Sunder's press release from this morning:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=906_1219351842
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthseekers
post Aug 21 2008, 06:42 PM
Post #45





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Outside the sheep pen.
Member No.: 66



Having gone through this again, and as NIST concluded that WTC7 'is' the first building to ever collapse as a result of fire, then I believe it is 100% safe to say, that NIST have nailed down the fact that WTC1 and WTC2 did NOT collapse, therefore, because of 'fire'. So what caused WTC1 and 2 'to' collapse?. It sure as hell was never those planes. NIST have now completed their hole and buried themselves in it. If the report by NIST, which is pure bullshit, states WTC1 and 2 did not collapse as a result of fire, then all gov made up stories have been debunked without the truth movement having to do a thing. (Though the truth movement has already destroyed all comers from the Gov agencies without breaking sweat anyway.)

This: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm has been confirmed as not the case by virtue of the WTC7 report today.

To be clear on this, I have no such belief in conspiracy theories, just the fact that all 3 buildings were deliberately CD, and no planes or fires caused them to collapse.

This post has been edited by Truthseekers: Aug 21 2008, 07:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 21 2008, 06:54 PM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Aug 21 2008, 01:03 PM) *
Was the Hudson River broken then?

It must have been on Tues. 9/11/2001, O892. That's why no one bothered to put one or two of these:

http://www.pbase.com/laprade/image/99110404

in place of that big white yacht here:

http://www.cgaux1sr.org/photo/WTC/P00Web04837.jpg


All hail fearless Ghouliani and his competent OEM. nonono.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Aug 21 2008, 08:29 PM
Post #47



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 838
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 22 2008, 07:34 AM) *

Dammit I must stop reading those comments pages, same old sh*t going around and around. Although this from Page 4 is interesting ...

QUOTE
As a former fire fighter who worked at 'the pile' on 9-11 I don't want to believe that my government would be involved in such a heinous thing. However, it was clear to me and to many of us who pulled multiple duties that day, that 'they' (who 'they' were is still not clear to me to this day) had decided we weren't gonna be able to 'save' WTC7 and 'they' were gonna bring it down. After a lot of fuzzing and false alarms, the building did come down. I distinctly remember one of our chiefs saying 'we gotta clear, they're gonna blow it up." In the chaos of that day and the subsequent weeks and months, it didn't even occur to me think about who 'they' were and how 'they' had managed to get the building ready to bring it down. I left the department in early 2003 and any fire fighter (or even police officers, as I recently was told by a former cop), we were all briefed on what happened on 9-11 and it was clear that we weren't allowed to discuss any of it in public if we wanted to keep our jobs. Now, with my wife and two young daughters, I couldn't afford to put my only source of income on the line for something I wasn't even sure about. I've always thougth that people who believe in conspiracies were bunch of crazies. I suppose this is what happened to many firefighters and police officers who were involved in the security and rescue efforts at ground zero who didn't wanna come out in public and talk about what they saw and heard that day.

After I saw the footage of the building coming down at free fall speed, though, it really is hard to think that there was no resistance from the rest of the supporting structure, particularly when you consider that the other buildings in the complex suffered even more severe damage and didn't collapse. In fact, those buildings were 'pulled' due to their condition, much in the same way that Larry Silverstein said 'they' decided to 'pull' building 7.

Although some of the footage I've seen seems compelling, I don't really buy this whole conspiracy, inside job stuff. I don't know who these conspiracy people are and what their motives are in putting together these claims, so I stick with my government's official version.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 21 2008, 08:36 PM
Post #48





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



perhaps some of you more knowledgeable individuals can assist.

some years ago, i read that wtc7, when salomon bros[later to become a part of citigroup] became the principal tenant of this building, was significantly reconstructed so as to create a large and open trading floor. as i read this disquisition, essentially wtc7 became two buildings on the same site...there was the original outer shell of steel/glass, and then an inner steel shell constructed as if the exterior shell.

i have never encountered this story elsewhere. but, i have no reason to doubt it.

if my memory banks serve me right, tishman performed that modification.

just as it was tishman that built the new wtc7.

tishman, of course, is an interesting construction firm. founded and operated by energetic zionists, i think.

anyway, if wtc7 was virtually two buildings on a single site, i wonder if the nist report noted that. and had any comments as to how "nothing" fires took out two buildings so symmetrically, and at what may have been faster than free fall speeds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 21 2008, 09:05 PM
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 21 2008, 06:36 PM) *
as i read this disquisition, essentially wtc7 became two buildings on the same site...there was the original outer shell of steel/glass, and then an inner steel shell constructed as if the exterior shell.

i have never encountered this story elsewhere. but, i have no reason to doubt it.

if my memory banks serve me right, tishman performed that modification.

Hi Albert,

Believe it or not, Wiki has the goods (today, at least). Quoting below for posterity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
---------------
The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons, with a red granite façade. The building was 610 feet (186 m) tall, with a trapezoidal footprint that was 330 ft (101 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.[1][2] Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1983.[1] In March 1987, the building opened, becoming the seventh structure of the World Trade Center.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.[5]

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[3] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[4]

A shipping/receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the eastern quarter of the 7 World Trade Center footprint. The building was open below the third floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp.[4] The spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was gypsum-based Monokote which had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and truss, and a three-hour rating for columns.[6]
Mechanical equipment was installed on floors four through seven, including 12 transformers on the fifth floor. Several generators in the building were used by the Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney and others.[6] Storage tanks contained 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel to supply the generators.[7] Fuel oil distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor.[8] After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center. Although this decision was criticized in light of the events of 9/11, the fuel in the building is today not believed to have contributed to the collapse of the building.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] The roof of the building included a small west penthouse and a larger east mechanical penthouse.[3]

Each floor had 47,000 sq ft (4,366 m²) of rentable office space which made the building's floor plans considerably larger than most office buildings in the City.[16] In all, 7 World Trade Center had 1,868,000 sq ft (174,000 m²) of office space.[6] Two pedestrian bridges connected the main World Trade Center complex, across Vesey Street, to the third floor of 7 World Trade Center. The lobby of 7 World Trade Center had three murals by artist Al Held: The Third Circle, Pan North XII, and Vorces VII.[17][18] A sculpture by Alexander Calder, called WTC Stabile (also known by other names, The Cockeyed Propeller and Three Wings) was on a plaza in front of the building.[19]
---
[Footnotes 1-20 are chronological, but the numbers didn't copy- just follow the sequence]
1 ^ a b Lew, H.S., Richard W. Bukowski, Nicholas J. Carino (September 2005). Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems (NCSTAR 1-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), p. 13.
2 ^ "Seven World Trade Center (pre-9/11)". Emporis.com. Retrieved on 2006-05-07.
3 ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Interim Report on WTC 7" (pdf). Appendix L. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2004). Retrieved on 2007-08-20.
4 ^ a b c Salvarinas, John J. (1986). "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects". Proceedings of the 1986 Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, Vancouver: Canadian Steel Construction Council.
5 ^ Lew, H.S., et al (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems", Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (pdf), NIST, p. xxxvii. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
6 ^ a b c d e f g Gilsanz, Ramon, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion, and Harold "Bud" Nelson (May 2002). "WTC7 (Chapter 5)", World Trade Center Building Performance Study (pdf), FEMA. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
7 ^ Milke, James (Spring 2003). "Study of Building Performance in the WTC Disaster". Fire Protection Engineering. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
8 ^ Grill, Raymond A., Duane A. Johnson (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-1J: Documentation of the Fuel System for Emergency Power in World Trade Center 7", Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (pdf), NIST. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
9 ^ Glanz, James and Eric Lipton (2001-12-20). "A Nation Challenged: The Trade Center; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center", New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-11-21.
10 ^ "Rudy Giuliani's 5 Big Lies About 9/11: On the Stump, Rudy Can't Help Spreading Smoke and Ashes About His Dubious Record," Village Voice August 8–14, 2007, pp. 22–36.
11 ^ Ruddy, Christopher (2004-05-24). "Replying to Giuliani". NewsMax. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
12 ^ "Transcript: Rudy Giuliani on Fox News Sunday". Fox News (2007-05-14). Retrieved on 2007-09-29. “Then why did he say the building — he said it's not — the place in Brooklyn is not as visible a target as buildings in Lower Manhattan”
# ^ Russ Buettner (2007-05-22). "Onetime Giuliani Insider Is Now a Critic", New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
# ^ "Giuliani Blames Aide for Poor Emergency Planning". Daily Intelligencer (2007-05-15). Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
# ^ a b National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee. "Transcript: Meeting of the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, December 18, 2007" (PDF).
# ^ Horsley, Carter B (1981-10-25). "Lower Manhattan Luring Office Developers", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
# ^ "Al Held". National Gallery of Australia. Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
# ^ Plagens, Peter (1989-04-17). "Is Bigger Necessarily Better?", Newsweek.
# ^ Wenegrat, Saul (2002-02-28). "Public Art at the World Trade Center", International Foundation for Art Research. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.
20 ^ Scardino, Albert (1986-07-11). "A Realty Gambler's Big Coup", The New York Times.
------------------END WIKI QUOTE

Another interesting WTC7 History page:

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/elitewatch_7wtc.html

Of course, I have already mirrored HTML and PDF copies of the above locally (and recommend others do the same in light of the NIST report "dropping" today).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 21 2008, 09:52 PM
Post #50


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



This is what you're remembering, albert. Also quoted from the NYT for posterity.


COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

By MARK MCCAIN
February 19, 1989

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe computer and telephone systems for the brokerage industry. According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan.

Salomon had tried to avoid the trouble and expense of alteration work by designing an office building, in partnership with a developer, from the ground up. But in late 1987, after the stock-market crash, Salomon withdrew as the co-owner and principal tenant of a project planned for Columbus Circle in midtown Manhattan.

The termination of that agreement left Salomon with an after-tax charge of $51 million and put the firm under intense pressure to find new headquarters space before its lease at One New York Plaza, in downtown Manhattan, expired in 1990. It no longer had time to shape the blueprints of a project; instead, it needed to find an existing building or one under construction that could be fitted for its high-technology operations in about two years.

After studying more than 50 options throughout the New York region, Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre - at Seven World Trade Center, an office tower that has been largely vacant since Silverstein Properties completed it two years ago.

''We really had a time constraint,'' explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. ''And we were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.''

Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.

After the girders are cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator they will be sold as scrap for about 4 cents a pound.

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.''

Nearly 2,000 people will be working on the retrofit project during the peak period. The cost, which is estimated at $200 million - not including carpeting, furniture and other office equipment - will come out of Salomon's pocket.

''We made a landlord contribution to the work,'' Mr. Silverstein said, ''but Salomon's costs will go well beyond that contribution by many, many times.''

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

To help shuttle Salomon employees between floors, construction crews are adding two escalators and four elevators inside the tower. And to help adjust the floor layouts to Salomon's needs, workers are moving sections of the tower's ''core'' area, which includes pipes up to two feet in diameter and air-handling equipment the size of delivery trucks.

''This is the first time I've every seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building,'' said Irwin G. Cantor, structural engineer for the project. ''And the whole world is watching.''

Perhaps not the whole world, but certainly some very concerned parties. Consolidated Edison intends to protect its electrical substation stretched out beneath the 47-story tower. The only existing tenant, an accounting firm, intends to protect its services and security while construction crews work above and below its four floors. Silverstein Properties and the land owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, intend to protect their investments. And Salomon intends to move the work along at breakneck speed.

''THIS is a massive project with a tight time frame,'' said Rudy M. Pavesi, a senior vice president of Morse/Diesel, construction manager of the Salomon project. ''I cannot think of any retrofit project in the city where anyone has spent more than $5 million a month. But at our peak time, we'll be spending more than $10 million a month.''

By next July, Salomon intends to move about 2,000 employees into the World Trade Center tower, and 1,000 more employees by the end of the year.

But given the magnitude and complexity of the construction work, that schedule may be unrealistic.

''Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation,'' said John D. Spassoff, a district manager of Silverstein Properties.

Elsewhere in Manhattan, other financial-services firms designing new headquarters from the ground up have not suffered setbacks like Salomon's aborted plans for the Columbus Circle site.

Morgan Guaranty Trust Company is building itself a 1.6-million-square-foot tower at 60 Wall Street that will be ready for occupancy and bristling with high-technology equipment later this year. United States Trust Company of New York will be moving in less than a year to a tower under construction at 114 West 47th Street, where it will be the major tenant.

''If a company can get together with a developer in an early stage, that's the best possible timing,'' said Richard Joynes, president of Hunter & Partners, a construction consulting firm in Manhattan. ''First of all, a 500,000- to million-square-foot user can effectively make a developer's speculative office project work financially, so the tenant is in a much stronger position to dictate terms of the lease. And the tenant can have features built into the space at minimal cost -rather than ripping out floors and making other changes after the steel and concrete is in place.''


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...agewanted=print
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Aug 21 2008, 11:49 PM
Post #51



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 838
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



I'm a lazy bugger so .... is there any mention in the report of the massive scoop taken out of the front of WTC7? You know the one I mean, the one that Popular Mechanics claimed to have seen in photos that the rest of us hadn't seen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 22 2008, 12:09 AM
Post #52


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



LOL. Here's the Popular Mechanics article on the report. I won't waste screenspace by copying it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/4278874.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Aug 22 2008, 12:20 AM
Post #53



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 838
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE
The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."


That's what I was looking for. So basically it was just fire wot did it. Then agan the fire was lit before the towers collapsed as we all know ......

Nice of Popular Mechanics to admit they were totally wrong in their Debunking book.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 22 2008, 01:48 AM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Oh wait- they said COLUMN NUMBER 79-- oooohhh... "well THERE'S your problem!" rolleyes.gif

Let's not leave out that same PM author Cohen's article "6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From Today's NIST Report:"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...ch/4278927.html

Did NIST ever mention the WTC7's safety factor redundancy? I didn't hear it anywhere in the press release- guess I'll need to dig into those 404+382+170 pages sometime soon (I've still got some WTC1/2 projects going right now). Albert brought up an interesting point above, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 22 2008, 01:57 AM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Re: the claim of "no water,"

Sanders' "thermal expansion" post here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=14294

is linked to the following which states:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIS...ry_on_0821.html

"After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.
...
"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he [Sunder] said."

Now the OEM, aborted firefighting efforts, Sheirer, chronology, etc. was discussed here already at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=6977
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 22 2008, 10:34 AM
Post #56


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



^^I thought it was a stack of dominoes that collapsed eh. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
barney_rebel
post Aug 22 2008, 11:57 AM
Post #57





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 7-November 06
Member No.: 211



Mystery solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers


By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press WriterThu Aug 21, 6:10 PM ET
Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center
building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade
Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On
Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers,
but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not
have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the
demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused
the total failure of a modern skyscraper.
"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a
mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.
Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers
broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom
half of the building without water.
The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy
theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred
about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled
suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a
controlled demolition.
Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.
"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he
said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were
used on the building.
Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion
inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom
or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation.
Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse,
based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that
internal column failure brought down the building.
Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was
caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was
stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's
emergency operations command center.
The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building
came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support
column that led to catastrophic failure.
"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.
The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building
recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat
earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of
the two large towers.
In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused
some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout
the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.
The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger
connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal
expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one
part of a building from spreading to other parts.
No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been
fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in
2006.
A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.
"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11
conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their
lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.
In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder
acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the
science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."
"The public should really recognize the science is really
behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in
the face."
___
On the Net:
National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/
9/11 Truth: http://www.911truth.org/
(This version CORRECTS spelling of Dara McQuillan.))

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_...ttacks_collapse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 22 2008, 12:38 PM
Post #58





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Has anybody here put a comment on PM's web site?

It seems to me that Popular Mechanics = Popular Fiction.


Will posterity remember the NIST presentation as 'The GAITHERSBURG Address'? whistle.gif

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Aug 22 2008, 12:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 22 2008, 04:12 PM
Post #59



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Aug 21 2008, 09:11 AM) *
Ben Stein, not the same Bent Steam that caused such furore not long ago with a creationist propaganda movie 'Expelled', surely.

Interesting that he's an attorney by trade, as I recall. If it is the same Ben Stein, here's Scientific American's take on that movie:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-st...iew-john-rennie

EDIT: Whichever Ben Stein, the NIST one appears to be in the PR/Public Affairs office:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/open_xml.html

"Beuhler... Beuhler..." [from a movie quote]

EDIT: Looks to be a different Ben Stein- the NIST one was at AIP for 17 years, not the actor/game show host/attorney:

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/836-3.html

EDIT2: The "other" Ben Stein:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0825401/bio
Reason for edit: Added link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
forthetrees
post Aug 22 2008, 11:33 PM
Post #60





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,869



(edited out because I found my answer...never mind)

This post has been edited by forthetrees: Aug 23 2008, 12:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st July 2014 - 01:21 AM