|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ASU2003
The only reason I brought up the federal building is because it was damaged and imploded.
Would this be the final report on WTC 7 from NIST?
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf
It looks like there were some flaws in the design of the building, and they did a good job explaining the collapse.
From other sources, there are sounds 9 seconds ahead of WTC 7 collapse, if they are explosions or collapsing material, I don't know. I think there are ways to take out a building quietly, but it might take a while and go into the paranoia column. |
Whoah....Dilbert1234567.....whoah....what's your hurry ???? The "fun" is just starting....let me answer ASU2003's question....please !!!
ASU2003, NIST has never issued it's "delayed" WTC 7 "final report". The html version of the link that you provided, tells why, on Page 4, the delay happened, and when the "final report", would be released. Now....new reports show that NIST will delay release of it's WTC 7 "final report", for at least afull year longer than the initial, "fall 2005" delayed release date:
Quote:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October
2005; final for December 2005.
Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work
on WTC towers.
This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the
ther Investigation reports.
|
The following is from google's <a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:VqvTaCDtfGIJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1">cache</a> of:
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm
NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster
What is NIST?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an agency of the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration. NIST develops and promotes measurement, standards, and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life.
What are the goals of NIST’s investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings?
The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. The investigation will serve as the basis for:
* improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
* improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
* revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
* improved public safety.
What are the main objectives of the investigation?
The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the World Trade Center disaster are to determine:
<b>* why and how the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft;</b>
* why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation,
and occupant behavior and emergency response);
* the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the World Trade Center Buildings; and
* which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use....
|
<b>Since WTC 7 was not impacted by any aircraft, and sice NIST "broke out" the WTC 7 final report, and...after delaying it's release to "late 2005", and now again, to "late 2006", is it unreasonable to suggest that NIST's web page is misleading as to it's first listed, "primary objective", and that with the delays in finalizing and releasing it's WTC 7 "final report", especially given the lame initial reasons for issuing an incomplete WTC "final report", that NIST has failed it's own, first listed "main objective[]s of the investigation" ?</b>
WTF does that mean ???? I dunno...but it can't be a good thing.....in fact, it smells!
Quote:
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/po..._citystate.php
Hey Buddy: What Brought WTC7 Down?
By Jarrett Murphy | January 25, 2006 10:47 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/po...ves/002374.php
Hey Buddy: What Brought WTC7 Down?
By Jarrett Murphy | January 25, 2006
Of the many mysteries surrounding 9-11, few have been of as much interest to as broad a range of people as the fate of World Trade Center 7, the 47-story office building that was the last to fall and appears to have been the first steel-framed skyscraper to collapse due solely to fire. <b>The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which this fall issued its final report on what happened to the Twin Towers, was supposed to report on WTC 7 at the same time. But that got pushed to December, then to this spring, and lately to the end of 2006. Now, NIST is soliciting a contractor to try to come up with the best explanation for why the building came down.</b>
NIST announced the move in a draft solicitation earlier this month. A formal bid is being prepared. Michael Newman, NIST spokesman, says the contractor will "determine the most likely scenario for the initiating event of the WTC 7 collapse and provide the global analysis of the collapse (i.e. the response of the whole building to the initiating event)."
The draft solicitation says NIST will consider the "possibility of any other events that may have occurred that day." This is a red flag to people who harbor alternative theories of what 9-11 was all about. WTC7, which housed offices for the CIA and the Office of Emergency Management, is central to the notion that the buildings at Ground Zero were brought down by planned demolitions, partly because film of the collapse shows a sudden, implosion-like demise.
The Voice asked NIST what it meant by "other scenarios." Its answer:
The contractor will look at up to 20 possible scenarios for the initiating event of the WTC 7 collapse. In collaboration with the NIST WTC 7 team, the contractor will reduce this number to no more than 5 scenarios deemed most likely to be correct and then focus its modeling on these five to eventually determine the single most likely scenario.
Posted in Citystate
|
Quote:
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index5.html
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day.
* By Mark Jacobson
March 27, 2006 issue of New York Magazine
Quote:
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/toc/20060327/
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
C’mon: Do you really think nineteen guys with box cutters were behind 9/11? Then why, when no steel-frame building had ever collapsed from fire, did three fall down that day? (One, 7 WTC, wasn’t even hit.) How could a terrorist’s passport emerge in perfect condition? Why was it so important to clear debris before all the bodies were recovered? Did the U.S. secretly plan the whole thing? The 9/11 conspiracy theorists have it all figured out.
|
.........“That’s him, the NIST guy,” William said, indicating Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the institute’s Trade Center report.
An elegantly attired man in his fifties, Dr. Sunder, holder of degrees from the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi and MIT, took his seat beside Carl Galioto, a partner at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, architects of the new $700 million replacement for 7 WTC. Behind them was a slide of “the new downtown skyline,” dominated by another Skidmore project, the Freedom Tower, which, at an iconic 1,776 feet, is next in line to be the world’s tallest building. Like the new 7 WTC, which Galioto said featured a “two-foot-thick vertical core encasing the elevators, utility infrastructure, and exit stairs,” the Freedom Tower will be “among the safest buildings ever built.” This was important, the architect said, because “constantly building and rebuilding” was what New York was all about.
After Dr. Sunder’s presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadn’t been able “to sleep at night” since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. “I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.”
The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of “molten metal” at ground zero indicates the likely presence of “high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”
“I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way,” the woman said.
“Actually, I have read it,” Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html
<b>I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?
This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.
NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”
Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”</b>
|
MS NBC's Tucker Carlson interviewed scholarsfor911truth.org 's Steven E. Jones, on Nov 16, 2005 but he seemed hostile towards Jones, and would not even roll the video that showed the collapse of WTC 7, that Jones had sent to MSNBC as part of his interview presentation. <b>Would an unbiased and openminded media treat Steven E. Jones with the same courtesy and lack of prejudice that it seems to extend to NIST? Where is the MSM reporting of NIST's failure to release a final WTC report that includes WTC 7? Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the collapse of 47 story WTC 7, at all?</b>
Isn't five years enough effing time for our government to issue a report as to why the only fire damaged, steel framed skyscraper in history, that was not hit by an airliner, or bombed as in the case of the Murrow building in Oklahoma, collapsed after burning for no more than 7 hours and 20 minutes, suddenly and completely, at a "free fall rate" into it's own footprint?
Why isn't the media joining Jone in his questions about how molten metal could exist at ground zero for six weeks, and asking why NIST issued a "final" WTC report that wasn't "final"?
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
Questioning what happened on 9/11
Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC
TRANSCRIPT
MSNBC
Updated: 12:10 a.m. CT Nov 16, 2005
.....CARLSON: Can you sum up very quickly the argument for us? You believe there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated?
JONES: Well, yes.
CARLSON: Is that correct?
JONES: ... There are two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse.
CARLSON: OK.
JONES: The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my 25-page paper.
CARLSON: I want to read you a quote from the 'Deseret Morning News,' a paper in Utah, from you. I'm quoting now.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic. Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all."
That's, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of the people listening. Do you have any evidence for that?
JONES: Well, not-not to the Muslims, I might say.
CARLSON: Well, that's good.
JONES: I have a lot of e-mails.
CARLSON: I'm sure your writings greeted with just glee in Islamabad, and Peshawar and places like that. But for Americans.
JONES: Well, I haven't received notes from there, but just good people. I have Muslim friends. Let me read, for example, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. I really want to do this experiment with you.
CARLSON: We don't have a lot of time for experiments, Professor. But if you could just ... give us one thing to hold onto. How-you make these claims, or appear to make these claims ...
JONES: Tucker, sure, sure. Let's start with the collapse of Building seven. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
CARLSON: OK. I am not sure if we can, but that is the World Trade Center. It's smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane.
JONES: Let's try.
CARLSON: Of course, it collapsed.
JONES: Right. It's 47 stories.
CARLSON: That's right.
JONES: Twenty-four steel columns in the center.
CARLSON: Right.
JONES: Trusses, asymmetrically supported. Now, I can't see what you're seeing. Are we rolling that?
CARLSON: No. We just see the building. And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in the lower level of that, which caught fire, and the resulting fire collapsed the building.
JONES: Well, that's basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course. "The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that."
CARLSON: OK.
JONES: But they admit there's only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle. That's called the kink. Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.
CARLSON: Professor, I am sorry that we are out of time ...
JONES: Whoa, one other thing I want to mention.
CARLSON: Ok. If you can hit it - hit it quickly.
JONES: OK. All right. Here we go. Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.
CARLSON: Right.
JONES: And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? It's direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.
CARLSON: OK.
JONES: It's very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.
CARLSON: Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on, even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks.
|
Quote:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
<b>Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?</b>
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
ABSTRACT
In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
Introduction
We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7........
|
As Steven E. Jones references in the following linked example found in his "paper" cited above......there is ample scientific, anecdotal, picture, and news reporting "evidence" that there was "molten metal" under the WTC wreckage for at least six weeks after the buildings collapsed. No one from NIST, or for that matter, any scientists that I have come across, can offer an explanation as to how temperatures hot enough to liquify steel were reached...and then persisted after the two airliners flew into the WTC towers 1 and 2, and then exploded:
Quote:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.
|
willravel.....in looking into this, I was surprised to find that NIST recovered "no steel" from WTC 7, that NIST's "WTC final report" did not contain a "WTC 7 final report", the lame excuses NIST gave for the delay.....the "new" WTC 7 "final report" dealy of an additional year....and the lack of any explanation as to the melting of steel and "molten metal" that persisted at ground zero after the WTC buildings collapsed.....not possible as a result of shortlived fires from jet fuel, diesel fuel, office paper, appliances, furniture fueled fires in WTC 1,2 and 7, since NIST and other scientists seem to agree that fire temperatures were never elevated to levels that could melt, or liquify iron or steel. |