No you don't really need it. If you were really interested, you wouldn't be asking me to post what was already posted (Post #111) on the prior page of this thread because it would have caught your attention upon an initial reading. But for those who missed it and are genuinely interested: The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence, although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. - Footnote 2, NCSTAR 1 page xxxvii, PDF page 39. http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017 And as already explained, there is no evidence NIST did ANY analysis, never mind "little".
I'm not going to read the whole freakin'' report again ... you're mixing quotes from WTC 7 to and 1 and 2 ...
Thanks for validating my point yet again. You don't need to read the whole report or any report, not even for the first time. I posted the exact quote and the exact location of the quote. No I'm not. You obviously haven't been paying attention to the recent line of discussion that prompted my question and you just picked what I posted out of context believing it was about WTC7. The discussion was about the construction of the core columns for the twin towers, not WTC7. But you're right, don't bother to read anything, you're not interested about 9/11 and that's obvious. For you it's strictly about finding anything you believe insults those who don't buy or contradict the OCT.
A former NIST employee exposes the NIST scam: Peter Ketcham (bottom center) appears in this photo from the NIST Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division’s “Summary of Activities for Fiscal Year 2000.” http://www.ae911truth.org/news/324-...-speaks-out-with-lte-in-europhysics-news.html
"What I can do is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience ..." - Peter Ketcham Exactly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a former NIST employee to see the obvious.
In all fairness to NIST (despite the fact that NIST was far from "fair"), they responded to the article in Europhysics News on the next page (44) following Ketcham's letter to the editor and the journal's editorial response. In summary, Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer claims that NIST stands by all its claims on the collapse of the 3 towers. He says "The NIST investigation into the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2 and 7 was the most detailed examination of structural failure ever conducted". Except NIST failed to examine the actual "collapse" of the twin towers in any detail ("the collapse was inevitable" doesn't qualify as any kind of examination and their own admission in a footnote that they only "investigated" up to the point of the collapse seals the fact that they did not examine it in any detail. And for WTC7, they left out critical structural components as part of their "detail" and ignored many eyewitness claims, among many other "details" they skipped. But this is their response anyway (again, see page 44 - PDF page 46). http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/05/epn2016-47-5-6.pdf But somehow I would not expect NIST to do otherwise and admit they pulled a major scam.
Peter Ketcham's comments demonstrate once again that there are a few good men in government. Damn few, but a few.
Those who won't speak out usually don't out of fear for their careers or in some cases their lives and that of their families. We have the very telling recent history of what happens to whistleblowers in the US.
Sadly, it seems the only good men in government are the whistleblowers. Jeffrey Sterling formerly of the CIA is sitting in prison, for doing much less than General Betrayus did.
There was a very interesting and highly informative article written by Chris Sarns a few years ago called "Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports". The link below is to Part 1 of 5. http://www.ae911truth.org/news/317-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html NIST claims that failures and damage occurred to the column connections when heated at 400 C for at least 3.5 hours due to thermal expansion (NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.4.5). There are several problems with that statement. In the first place, fires did not last for more than approximately 20-30 minutes in any section of WTC7 then moved on (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 Section 8.4.1), so NIST contradicted itself. In the second place, the presumption is that the steel is exposed to heat at a steady 400 C for the entire period of 3.5-4 hours (the steel frame acts as a heat sink, dissipating heat). In the third place the fire at the area around column 79 had already gone out more than 1 hour 20 minutes prior to the time of the collapse of WTC7. And in the fourth place, NIST maintained that a continuous temperature of 600 C was required for enough thermal expansion to dislodge column 79 (which was recently forensically proven to be 100% false). Such a temperature requires more energy than an office fire can produce. If the fire was out at the alleged failure location by the time WTC7 collapsed and a continuous temperature of 600 C caused thermal expansion, then column 79 should have failed 1 hour 20 minutes before it actually did (according to NIST's contradictory claims). Anyway, Part 1 the article is called "BURNED-OUT FIRE". It does take technical expertise to detail key aspects of the NIST report but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how utterly ****ed up the NIST report is once the many details are exposed.
The NIST reports are so incredibly intellectually bankrupt that it defies logic that a team of experts could possibly have made so many mistakes. IMO (and I assume Sarns and many other experts) these people collaborated in a massive fraudulent scheme to design a report that sounds scientifically reasonable to a non-expert who fails to do any research. In part 2 of Chris Sarns' expose "Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports", many more deceptions are detailed. Some of these have already been described in this thread, others perhaps not. This part is subtitled "MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSION". Much of the detail described by Sarns comes directly from NIST's published official report. "NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent." http://www.ae911truth.org/news/318-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2.html
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, page 391 [PDF page 457] 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. But NIST said that the critical damage occurred at temperatures below 400° C. The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400° C (750° F). NCSTAR 1A, page 21 [PDF page 63] Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79. NCSTAR 1A, page 22 [PDF page 64] In the temperature and sag spread sheet above, 400° C would expand the 53-foot floor beams only 3.3 inches. Pursuant to a FOIA request by AE911Truth structural engineer Ron Brookman, NIST finally released the structural and shop drawings in January 2012. They can be downloaded here: WTC 7 Blueprints Exposed Via FOIA Request: Building Plans Allow for Deeper Analysis of Skyscrapers Destruction. http://www.ae911truth.org/news/318-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2.html ------------------------------ It's interesting to note that Dr. Leroy Hulsey forensically determined the beams thermally expanded no more than about 2 inches using NIST's own data, including data NIST didn't use.
Why would you expect NIST to say anything that would actually be part of an investigation into the collapse of the twin towers when they admit they never investigated the collapses?
NIST's "sloppiness" (as characterized by one poster who obviously doesn't want to rock the boat for fear the 9/11 OCT might be exposed as a massive fraud): Part 3 of 5 in Chris Sarns and Judy Shelton's expose is called "MISSING SHEAR STUDS". As always, the authors use NIST's own words and illustrations in their own publications to expose their treachery. The only "sloppiness" I see here is that NIST apparently ASSumed all their peers are idiots or blind. -------- NIST's final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, issued in November 2008, has many flaws, including blatant fraud. If we go back to its June 2004 Progress Report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referenced shear studs, which are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place and to impart stability and strength to buildings. But in its final report four years later, NIST reworded its comments on shear studs to give the appearance that none were used on the floor girders. Why would NIST make this fraudulent statement? Read on ... http://www.ae911truth.org/news/319-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-3.html (continuing) This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NISTs misstatements of its own report are not mere mistakes (here I beg to differ with the authors, they obviously don't read 9/11 discussion forums). They are bending to accommodate a theory that cannot, under any circumstances, stand up. .... NIST used a drawing without the shear stud notation in the final report on WTC 7. The space with the missing shear stud notation was instead used for the angle notation. NIST did not release the As built drawings, which no doubt have the shear studs on the girder between columns 44 and 79. A FOIA release in 2012 contained drawings that show <30> shear studs on that girder on Floor 10 and Floor 20. It is simply not consistent or logical to have shear studs on the girder on some floors but not on other floors. See drawings S-8-10 and S-8-20 below. -------- So is there evidence that the OCT isn't true? All over the [expletive] place, thanks to NIST.
why bother? ... it's quite obvious what happened to the sane people on this planet ... you're cherry picking again ... I can't find the context in his short quotes ... do you know what shop drawings and as-builts are Bob? ... were the beams and columns numbered ( Ican't be bothered to read the whole NIST report again ... As-builts are NEVER correct ... there is a building in Miami that was found to not have all the post tension cables tensioned but the as-builts show that they were with all the psi calculations from the structural engineer of record included, with the as-builts ... nobody knows for sure what the collapse initiation was for WTC 7 ... you think CD ... I think catastrophic structural failure for whatever reason as their is no physical evidence of CD ... when I say the NIST report is "sloppy", it is only because (as I have explained to you before) because I heard no mention of the foundation having been disrupted by the collapses of 1 and 2 which could have offset 7 and shifted weight to stress different areas of the building and the first thing that would have happened (IMO) is that shear studs would have "sheared" ... and quit trying to insult me Bob or I will continue to do the same ... or we could just put this to rest and ignore each other ...
So you're saying any investigation was worthless because it's obvious to YOU what happened? You speak for no one but yourself, never mind the entire planet. That's a joke right? "None are so blind as those who will not see." - Matthew Henry Maybe you should read without your blinders on. Of course none of the above has anything to do with how NIST conducted its non-existent investigation. Your mentality is intellectually insulting but irrelevant. What you post or don't is your prerogative.
irrelevant truther nonsense ... you have buildings collapsed in ruins ... neither you nor I know how it happened ... nor does NIST or the 9/11 commission ... but we do know many other things ...
Irrelevant silly comment. This thread is about how NIST conducted its "investigation", not about "truther nonsense", whatever that means. Irrelevant comment. This thread is about how NIST conducted its "investigation", not what you think others besides you know or not. Irrelevant silly comment. This thread is about how NIST conducted its "investigation", not about "other things". Having said that, who is "we" and how do you know what everyone that you audaciously characterize as "we" and conflate with what YOU believe YOU know? Stick to the topic Shiner, you're off topic as usual.
Now there's something we can agree on. Irrelevant silly comment. This thread is about how NIST conducted its "investigation", not about "truther diversionary tactics" (whatever that's supposed to be) or YOUR diversionary tactics Mr. Hypocrite, which are glaringly evident.
Well the buildings did have to hold themselves up before the collapses and it was done by steel. The NIST specifies the 200,000 tons of steel in 3 places. So mentioning the amount of steel but not concrete is a bit odd. psik
