I'd like to introduce this very recent summary of finding regarding WTC7 by a group of physicists, chemists, engineers, commercial pilots, and lawyers who concluded WTC7 was indeed demolished intentionally. Some of the 'funny business' going on between NIST and their claims of not recovering any steel from WTC7 (despite photographs of a NIST investigator pointing out what they say they didn't recover). The link here: http://www.911truth.org/press-relea...e-witness-testimonies-architectural-drawings/ Then, an excerpt from the article: The first Panel study deals with the NIST computer simulations, which purported to show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused a girder to be pushed off its seat at Column 79, thereby initiating a global collapse of the entire 47-storey building at 5:21 in the afternoon. However, a recent FOIA request has produced WTC 7 architectural drawings showing that the NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible. Does anyone think it's a bit strange that NIST chose to completely omit parts of the building's structure in their supposed 'simulations'? I certainly. do. Further, the point raised here multiple times concerning comments ranging from 'everybody knew' WTC7 was going to fall, to 'nobody knew' seem to be confirmed here as well. It appears indeed that 'everybody knew', and, in my opinion, and the opinions of many other professionals (far more qualified than me) seem to think so as well, that this indicates foreknowledge of the building's upcoming controlled demolition. How does anybody still believe that (at the very least) WTC7 WASN'T some sort of controlled demolition, when there were obvious signs that it was, and obvious funny business going on with NIST? How anyone can keep defending the Kean commission's version and endorse it as some kind of redemption FOR the legitimacy of this whole sham is beyond me. Thoughts please.
Stndown, Can you please site the analysis, math, and calculations that show this to be the case? Thanks.
Here's some more stuff on building 7. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M (4:30:38 time mark) Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg The Death of Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about 9/11 WTC 7 Building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHHvo6U4lA Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
I'm sorry, But the title of this thread quite clearly stated "demolition of WTC7 CONFIRMED." So when I came on here I was expecting to see some sort of fact like a hacked email where someone high ranking admits to it or a picture of a thermite charge on a column marked WTC7. But no. Not a single actually fact or bit of evidence was provided, as per the norm of truthers. Instead what we get is more assumptions, you asking questions, and guesses all stimulated from parts of the official reports that either don't make sense to YOU or that seem strange. I'm sorry but noticing an incungruaty within the NIST report does not equate to hard solid EVIDENCE or FACT which is what you need to provide to win your case. Please try again.
Welcome to the World of Nutter Investigation. Here's how you play....base your position on personal incredulity, learn how to cut and paste, find your favorite "false flag" and have it!
No, I personally cannot. Perhaps though, if you read the link, you could answer some of these undoubtedly genuine questions that you are asking me? - - - Updated - - - Demolition, just like Buildings 1 and 2, is more accurate. No one should get over it.
NIST is infallible in your mind so, what would you suggest? Common sense is all that is required to 'win the case'. It IS confirmed to any logical thinking individual.
The nutter investigation, I would describe as follows. Simply ask corrupt individuals what happened on 9-11, salute and accept everything they tell you as 100% fact and carry on. (logic or actual thinking, not required). - - - Updated - - - Of course. Anything except saluting the corrupt and carrying on is not to be accepted. We all know the deal.
Bumped for Stndown. - - - Updated - - - NISTs findings have been confirmed worldwide by independent research.
The link has no such answers either and no evidence has ever been found for demolitions in any of the 3 buildings.
When did I ever say NIST was infallible? They are human just like us and insure they make mistakes just like us. You have yet to provide a solid instance of such a mistake but I'm sure there are a few. My point is that even if you do find a mistake that does NOT automatically equate to "George Bush and Dick Cheney, with help from the Jews of course, used their alien lizard men magic powers to blow up the WTCs so that we could invade Iraq and steal all their oil so they can power there intergalactic space cruiser." Norther does asking a random question which is ALL you have done so far. Either give us some actual EVIDENCE or delete this thread for false advertisement.
I also want to point out some problems with the link you provided. This "consensus" was conducted by 24 (small number in my opinion) completely random people consisting of a few physicists, chemists and engineers (ok) and commercial pilots and lawyers. Why the hell would a commercial pilot or lawyer be a subject matter expert on building demolition? Why were they part of the panel? The consensus was broken up into three different sections. I could go into each one but that would just be a waste of time. Instead is like to focus on section 3. In this section the consensus tries to state that proof that tower 7 was brought down by controlled demolition came from eyewitnesses that were quoted as knowing that the tower was going to fall prior to the collapse. So obviously that means they have someone on record saying something like "ok let's blow the charges" or "is the thermite ready" or "let's get this controlled demolition going ." Right? Nope. Instead we are treated to quotes like this. "We were standing there, waiting for 7 to come down, we were waiting for quite a while, couple of hours." And "They were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down" and "they had a floor of guys just standing there, just waiting for 7 to come down." So... Out of the quotes they gave us, were any of these examples of evidence of testimony to controlled demolition? I'm thinking... No.
Very telling Stndown! Since you and your truther brethren cannot provide mathematical/engineering evidence that either debunks the "official story" or provides a viable alternative scenario, you'll go with the only thing you know. They're correupt individuals. It HAS to be a conspiracy! And isn't this what you are doing with all the conspiracy theories? You have been asked numerous times to provide any scientific and mathematical evidence to show a controlled demolition was viable and you have provided NONE whatsoever. All you can do is point out things you THINK are wrong with the "official story". What a joke.
Does the link below help, or is it not satisfactory? http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/ From the link: When NIST’s WTC 7 report was issued in November 2008, the structural drawings for the building were inexplicably missing. Accordingly, the report could not be scrutinized from a structural standpoint. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was successful in obtaining the release of a large number of the drawings in late 2011.[2] Review of the released WTC 7 drawings showed that there were two serious structural feature omissions from the NIST analyses relevant to the NIST “collapse initiation” theory. They were: 1. Steel plate stiffeners that provided critical support for girder A2001.[3] 2. Floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007, which provided lateral support for beam G3005.[4] Analyses performed by independent engineers show that when the stiffeners and lateral support beams are included, NIST’s probable collapse sequence is impossible, because: 1. The girder flange for column 79 could not bend or fail with the stiffeners present.[5] 2. Beam G3005 – which NIST claimed buckled from thermal expansion and led to the collapse of WTC 7 – could not have buckled if G3005’s omitted lateral support floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 were present.[6]
Does anything in this link do anything for you? http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...xposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2-of-5.html From the link: NIST ignored its own finding: "Temperatures were uniform (within 1°C) across the bottom flange and web, but the top flange temperature was less by up to several hundred degrees because the slab acted as a heat sink." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 391 [pdf p. 53] Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing. NIST finally released the structural and shop drawings in January 2012, pursuant to a FOIA request. They can be downloaded here: WTC 7 Blueprints Exposed Via FOIA Request: Building Plans Allow for Deeper Analysis of Skyscraper’s Destruction What 'evidence' is it that you need to conclude that the Kean story is bunk? Do you see anything in the above information that might suggest that this could be the case? Or, are you aligned with the official version, to the exclusion of all else?
The link provides opinion ( amateur opinion at that ) with no evidence or even specific refference to NIST
For the umpteenth time. Where is the FEA or calcualtions that show the following enlarged, red, and bolded statement to be true? You can't just claim something like this to be true without engineering data to support it. That's why you truthers continue to fail. You provide nothing in the form of calculations or engineering data.
There are none and there never will be. It's futile to ask. Belief in the truther movement is like believing in the sugar plum fairies. The only way to make them real is to believe real, real hard. Stndowm seems to be trying.
The bottom line is all truthers can do is continue to try and find holes in the "official story". There will never be an alternative theory presented because there is none. Nobody from the truther community will EVER present anything with number or calculations because they know full well that it would be torn to shreds. People like Gage will continue to mislead truthers with unsupported (mathematically and scientifically) garbage and use the truther's hatred/mistrust of the government to it's fullest. It really is faith based cult following. That's why the truthers perform a disappearing act when you challenge them to provide the same type of evidence (engineering data) that they claim from us.
The 'bottom line' is that no matter what truthers (or anybody else) ever tries to present and discuss, some people will continue their blockade on the truth and refuse to discuss the probabilities, possibilities, or ANYTHING that deviates from the Kean omission's nonsense. - - - Updated - - - Back to strictly ridicule? - - - Updated - - - You ask for things that are impossible to ascertain and in the most obtuse, irrelevant manner possible, in my opinion.
