The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive three-year scientific and technical investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, col…
(Visited 31 times, 1 visits today)
NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive three-year scientific and technical investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, col…
Thermite doesn't need an explosion to be effective.
complicit govt
ok considering most these comments are old… ill just break down what im reading from idiots.
FIRST TIME IN HISTORY = proof of inside job…. yea, no it doesnt mean squat very rare things happen all the time, in no way does it shows a conspiracy.
They didnt test for explosives. Well in science you dont look for something to prove it wasnt. you look whats there then make the hypothisis. nothing screamed explosives so yea..
nano thermite . no test has showed nano thermite was there.
NIST is the US Department of Commerce, anyone see a conflict of interest?
Of course my comment is pending approval. Hooray for the 1st Amendment.
NIST is the US Department of Commerce, anyone see a conflict of interest?
Hello! I am an engineer in Brazil. The engineering world abe that WTC7 was achieved by WTC1 to collapse. You take a blow from one iron bar in the face will not stand. Worse as the burning wreckage of WTC1 that WTC7 fell into the water and did not. The fire system was destroyed as well as water pipelines street. There is no mystery. WTC1 was no fire and the water to clear. Firefighters confirm the WTC7 and not the CIA. If you want I can send links and videos on the engineering 9/11.
" Highrise buildings in this country are very, very safe. Having a collapse of this nature is a very rare event"
In fact, it's so rare it only happened once, and that was on 911. Therein lies the problem with the whole NIST and 911 Commission report. Everything from the buildings falling to the failure of our air defense is attributed to very rare events. All these "very rare events" just happened to occur on the same day in the same place. Too much coincidence to be believable.
I´m sorry but they say "No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire" but they didn´t even test for explosives, which as we know would and has caused buildings to collapse.
I would probably believe them, if they had tested for eplosives and made a simillar video investigating controlled demolision, then compared the two concluding fire was more likely.
But this is not science.
Where can we download the model used and the summary documentation of how the model was built so we can do peer review?
The audio of almost full tapes was obviously redacted, before they were released to International Center for 9/11 Studies (NIST FOIA, log number: 09-42), mostly on DVDs. It's apparent, that a majority of the videos on tapes lacking of audible volume at one audio channel (right channel), while CUMULUS clips have full stereo. That's curious, because the CUMULUS clips are just clipped full tapes.
Besides that, NIST still withholding some tapes (like of Naudet, Spak, Braden) and photographs.
NIST 2008 report does does try to explain the molten iron in the basement.
2:00 "The NIST Team found no evidence that explosives were involved in the collapse."
Well, did you LOOK? 3 independent teams found evidence of nano thermate, and they didn't have to look very hard. You guys also deny molten metal, are we supposed to ignore our lying eyes?
Molten metal can be seen pouring out of the south tower minutes before its collapse. A myriad of witnesses and first responders reported POOLS of molten metal, WEEKS after the collapse.
Who and why?
911missinglinks. com
NIST has requested that I watch this 3 minute video about the collapse of WTC 7. They have broken down 10,000 pages of research in 3 minutes. Let's break it down.
(0:15)
"No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire."
That claim is still a FACT to date!
Continued…..
What? The cullums pushed? Thought warm metal got softer and those columns rather would hang than push. Have this theory been tested on real scale models and found to be conclusive?
Dog tags dont melt when when a plane crashes and there are no family members of passengers. Have a nice day.
(3) If this is true:
1) Please could you explain why NIST dismissed ANY and ALL "circumstances", with the exception of fire, based on the absence of a single blast loud enough to indicate the use of the explosives used in conventional demolition?
2) Did NIST ever release the results of the "additional computer analysis" that was done in order to satisfy the team (and the building community) that this was the case?
(2) have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE would have initiated the destructive sequence of events."
(My caps) (3)
@usnistgov
In para 3 at h t t p : / / nist. gov/ el/wtc7 final_112508. c f m (remove spaces) NIST states:
"In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still (2)
World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse – A film based largely on the research and information from the book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Official Final Report About 9/11 is Unscientific and False
/watch?v=KHxQ6yzU1qo
You must start the timing when the collapse begins. Correctly the buildings destruction started when the fires started. Therefore the collapse took over 8 hours, hardly free fall.
Yes they do. Debris ignited fuel storage tanks within the building.
NIST didn't know the exact ignition source for the fires in WTC7 after collapse of WTC1, like for the 104th floor fire at the west face of North Tower. And why the sprinkler systems didn't work in WTC7 and in the upper region of WTC1, above the impact zone, because the 104th floor sprinklers were served by the water reserve tank on mechanical floor 108-110.
It's called correctly freefall acceleration, not speed.
NIST never explained how this building could have collapsed in free fall speed. The only way that is possible is with explosivs.
NIST is corrupt.
NIST calls this a progressive collapsed! WTC7 fell altogether in one motion in 7 seconds! Not progressively! They cant even model it on the Computer because its not possible! Thermate does not make a bang. Why didn't WTC5 WTC6 not fall after been eating by fire? How did the BBC report it had fallen 21 minutes before it happened? Why don't NIST show there model data and have it peer reviewed? Yow know one day people will realised you lied and then what will you do?
I hold a physics degree. The testimony presented in this video seems to be perfectly reasonable to me.
So I'm curious: how did you develop your intuition of physical principles?
Negligence
In
Stating
Truth
NIST is a joke.