Archived

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

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall

34 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

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

Posted · Report post

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

You leftist wacko's are a piece of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Posted · Report post

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

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

...might want to consider a different paper soon...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/08/business/08times.php

"The New York Times Company plans to borrow up to $225 million against its mid-Manhattan headquarters building, to ease a potential cash flow squeeze as the company grapples with tighter credit and shrinking profits."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

barack_did_wtc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

9+1+1 is 11 11 is the age of my little cousin. then you take 1+1 which is 2. Which was 9 years ago from when he was 2. 9+1=10 1 year less than his age. you add one and you get 11. 9/11. My cousin did 9/11!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You should scold him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0[/ame]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I give it 8 stars, it's got a good beat and it's easy to dance to -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites