Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RockECU

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall

Recommended Posts

For all of you doubters, some SCIENCE to back up claims regarding 9/11.

From architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.

"In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. ae911truth"

watch video here regarding this:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't trust youtube videos. I have yet to see one (news related) that was worth the bandwidth it used. I do however, trust these guys who did a lot of research and backed up conclusions with actual verifiable information.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

But those that believe in this kind of stuff just believe those that disagree with them are blind or part of the conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, Bush planted the bombs, Cheney pushed the button...we get it.

You leftist wacko's are a piece of work.

1 - What does the wacko have to necessitate the apostrophe s?

2 - You rightist wackos are a piece of work as well.

I don't trust youtube videos.

But you trust the government?

Do you trust eye witness accounts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll look forward to reading such big news in tomorrow's NY times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the people that automatically dismiss stuff like this just as foolish as those that blindly buy into every theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe all the kooky theories about that day, but I do believe our government had a role in it... Some people refuse to believe it simply because of the ramifications that would have....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - What does the wacko have to necessitate the apostrophe s?

2 - You rightist wackos are a piece of work as well.

But you trust the government?

Do you trust eye witness accounts?

I do trust eyewitness accounts, when I know the eyewitness. For example, I have a friend who worked in the pentagon on 9-11. He saw debris from the attack, and knows it was a plane, not a missile as some fools have said. What I don't post is some random guy I never heard of posting a youtube video that puts out a bunch of random cut and paste crap and calls it journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×