Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

15678911»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This visual aid may help you understand this?

    459459.png

    Stage 1 is 1.75 second

    Stage 2 is the freefall space between 1.75 and 4.57

    Stage 3 is the rest.

    Stage 2 NIST is claiming the building fell through empty space all the way down to Stage 3.

    That's not possible there be structural resistance at these points when coming down

    The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...20Vol%202.pdf).

    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    This visual aid may help you understand this?

    Stage 1 is 1.75 second

    Stage 2 is the freefall space between 1.75 and 4.57

    Stage 3 is the rest.

    Stage 2 NIST is claiming the building fell through empty space all the way down to Stage 3.

    That's not possible there be structural resistance at these points when coming down
    The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...20Vol%202.pdf).

    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
    But that's not what you said.
    You said:
    It's basic Physics. Go to your window drop an apple out it just falls to the ground no resistance. What NIST is claiming is this same apple fell at the same rate as WTC7 with no resistance.
    I don't need visual aids cheerful. I'm not arguing with your about points of a report that you are free to lie about or you don't understand.

    I just want you to acknowledge your lie and that you aren't able to do a simple physics problem.

    At least be honest enough to do that...


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol wait, do you think that Stage 1,2 and 3 mean distance or sections of the building?
    Oh wow...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not what you said.
    You said:

    I don't need visual aids cheerful. I'm not arguing with your about points of a report that you are free to lie about or you don't understand.

    I just want you to acknowledge your lie and that you aren't able to do a simple physics problem.

    At least be honest enough to do that...

    What am I lying about I posted what NIST said and provided you with a visual aid to better understand it?

    Freefall happened fact it even acknowledged by NIST...

    I said Stage 2 freefall occurred. Drop an apple out the window it would have dropped at the same rate as WTC7did between, 1.75 and 4.0 seconds.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol wait, do you think that Stage 1,2 and 3 mean distance or sections of the building?
    Oh wow...

    It rate of descent the building fell., you see the right side how long did it take to fall before you could not see it anymore on videos. That's what NIST analysed.,


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Drop an apple out the window it would have dropped at the same rate as WTC7did between, 1.75 and 4.0 seconds.
    Lol. Yea, you don't understand the report, what free fall is or basic physics...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This is column 79 NIST claims lead to the collapse failure. One Single failure brought down the building. Notice all the columns along the floor they would all have to fail along the east and west width of the building.

    NIST removed those bolts you see because they claim they could not find them on the drawings they had, a lie or they did look hard enough.

    459463.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. Yea, you don't understand the report, what free fall is or basic physics...

    If you want to continue being an idiot by all means continue. I even point it out to you in black bold writing

    The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...20Vol%202.pdf).

    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    If you want to continue being an idiot by all means continue.

    Banned for one week.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This thread.

    For anyone "bamboozled" by photos, numbers, etc stop. It's very simple. The inside of WTC 7 collapsed first, leaving the outer facade (the shell) of the building supported by very little. So, when the facade falls, in the beginning it speeds up, it basically reaches "free fall" speeds because there is nothing significant halting it, and then it slows down as it reaches resistance at the bottom. The physics are complex, but the concept isn't. That's what happened to WTC 7, it's well documented and explained


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This thread.

    For anyone "bamboozled" by photos, numbers, etc stop. It's very simple. The inside of WTC 7 collapsed first, leaving the outer facade (the shell) of the building supported by very little. So, when the facade falls, in the beginning it speeds up, it basically reaches "free fall" speeds because there is nothing significant halting it, and then it slows down as it reaches resistance at the bottom. The physics are complex, but the concept isn't. That's what happened to WTC 7, it's well documented and explained

    That fine and dandy explantation but how does occur? You have chosen to ignore, NIST has removed shear studs, girder fasteners, the girder plate, to allow for thermal expansion of the steel beam on Floor 13.

    If a carpenter forgot to roof your home with nail fittings, would you think he did a fine job?

    FEMA metallurgy study in 2002 revealed a lot about what actually occurred. The steel beams were melted. This is a mystery how an office fire heat of 400c can melt through steel? FEMA also found a liquid made of primarily Iron and Sulphur on the steel beam. The evidence is overwhelming nano-thermite was used to damage the steel beams, and girder to cause a collapse.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    It's me believe Rumsfield is one of the conspirators because his reaction made no sense on the day. After hearing of the second plane crashing what does Rumsfield do about it, absolutely nothing. He decides to continue on with everyday intelligence briefing for another half hour while people were dying on aircraft and people were dying in New York. What people don't know he Rumsfield was in charge of the response to 9/11 attacks when the President out of action. What the normal reaction most people had that day and compare yours to Rumsfield!

    I think I just found a piece of evidence that also highly suspicious.

    Rumsfield on radio show pretending he does not know what building 7 is. Playing the dummy card.



    But if you check his bio his last job before appointed as Defence Secretary, he was the chairman of the Salomon Smith Barney International advisory group.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-rumsfeld-resume/

    Salomon Smith Barney had offices on floor 13 in WTC7 and many other floors inside WTC7.

    Rumsfield did not know this come on now the man is guilty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Skeptics will try to tell you thermite cannot rip apart steel.

    However, this is untrue.

    This is steel ripped apart by just conventional thermite.

    460274.png

    FEMA WTC7 steel sample.
    460275.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    New York Times 2001

    Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks

    Dr Barnett is quoted as saying this.
    A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr Barnett said.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

    There you have an expert disputing NIST findings. Why did NIST ignore the steel was melted by high temperatures?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The New York Times articles are a goldmine for people who don't believe the official story about 9/11

    Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.

    A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-taken.html

    Skeptics claimed drywall resulted in the sulphur getting on the steel. They never did an experiment to prove that, either did NIST.


    Well someone did and results are not that shocking steel did not melt. Well, worth watching this experiment this how you debunk the debunkers.

    5 minutes in for the experiment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    NIST thinks this resembles that actual collapse?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NIST_7_WTC_Exterior_buckling.jpg


    460303.png

    This what the northside collapse actually looked like.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    NIST claim no shear studs, web plate stiffeners, or lateral plates were on the girder at column 79.

    Completely false this column 79 during construction of WTC7.

    All these fittings are present.
    460305.png

    Shear studs on the girder 30 of them.

    460306.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dr Hulsey has provided an update on his WTC7 collapse research study. He just a month or two out from release. There could a number of papers sent for peer review by respected journals.

    Dr Hulsey says he has computer simulated the actual collapse. His model replicated the actual collapse! NIST must be squirming right now.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/9618-wtc-7-study-update


Advertisement