CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › WTC Tower 7 NIST report finally out
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTC Tower 7 NIST report finally out

post #1 of 61
8/21/08 at 7:30pm
Thread Starter 
I don't expect this will shut up the clueless ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4278874.html

Quote:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."
Reply
post #2 of 61
8/21/08 at 7:58pm
Reply
post #3 of 61
8/21/08 at 8:06pm
Thread Starter 
yt, you already reviewed the 77 page report? Are you going to submit your engineering and scientific corrections to the NIST?
Reply
post #4 of 61
8/21/08 at 8:11pm
Nice try, ElCap, but I've learned my lesson about discussing 9/11 in the politics forum, so I went for humor instead.
Reply
post #5 of 61
8/21/08 at 8:16pm
Not to be a dick, but I don't get it.
Reply
post #6 of 61
8/21/08 at 8:23pm
I could see buying the theory of why the twin towers went down, though I'm still skeptical. But office chairs burning causing a big steel building to collapse? Nope...no way. No other skyscrapers ever collapsed due to a fire, and your saying furnishings brought that one down? No sprinklers in that thing?
Reply
post #7 of 61
8/21/08 at 8:28pm
What, you don't buy thermite chairs and magnesium desks Pete?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMkrk3KWVuU
Reply
post #8 of 61
8/21/08 at 8:35pm
Is that what the black ops team used, Snaieke?
Reply
post #9 of 61
8/21/08 at 8:47pm
Thermal expansion is the new cold fusion.

Reply
post #10 of 61
8/21/08 at 9:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
I could see buying the theory of why the twin towers went down, though I'm still skeptical. But office chairs burning causing a big steel building to collapse? Nope...no way. No other skyscrapers ever collapsed due to a fire, and your saying furnishings brought that one down? No sprinklers in that thing?
Imagine you write a detailed report and the naysayers don't even bother reading it. Wouldn't you find that frustrating?

From the report (and my PDF viewer can't cut and paste so I'm just going to pust a snippet ..)
Quote:
Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.
How can you disagree with a report you haven't even read. Not even the summary!!! (this is in section 4.2)
Reply
post #11 of 61
8/21/08 at 9:16pm
This will stir the pot again.

I'll be waiting for Jesse Ventura to show his ugly mug on the news.
Reply
post #12 of 61
8/21/08 at 9:22pm
How do you know to trust the guy who wrote it? Maybe Karl Rove had a gun to his head.
Reply
post #13 of 61
8/21/08 at 9:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Imagine you write a detailed report and the naysayers don't even bother reading it. Wouldn't you find that frustrating?
On the contrary! I look forward to reading it tonight. It's not often you get to read about a "new phenomenon" in an official government report, at least not since Project Blue Book.
Reply
post #14 of 61
8/21/08 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Imagine you write a detailed report and the naysayers don't even bother reading it. Wouldn't you find that frustrating?

From the report (and my PDF viewer can't cut and paste so I'm just going to pust a snippet ..)


How can you disagree with a report you haven't even read. Not even the summary!!! (this is in section 4.2)
You know, instead of my joke post I was going to reply to Pete and say I bet the two giant towers that collapsed knocked out the sprinkler system but ... I didn't want to just shoot from the hip.
Reply
post #15 of 61
8/21/08 at 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
How do you know to trust the guy who wrote it? Maybe Karl Rove had a gun to his head.
Sigh, yes, you're right. Rove must be behind this. He is single handedly responsible for all evil in the world these past 8 years. He's like the Flash, in all places at once!

While I respect one's right to an opinion, I draw the line at those who believe the government blew up the buildings or had a hand in knocking them down. In this case I say you're insane. Believe what you want, doesn't make you less of a fucktard when it comes to building number 7 (said in my best Jesse The Body voice).
Reply
post #16 of 61
8/21/08 at 11:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
On the contrary! I look forward to reading it tonight. It's not often you get to read about a "new phenomenon" in an official government report, at least not since Project Blue Book.
Fire?
Reply
post #17 of 61
8/21/08 at 11:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudgeSmails View Post
Sigh, yes, you're right. Rove must be behind this. He is single handedly responsible for all evil in the world these past 8 years. He's like the Flash, in all places at once!
That's a rule of a conspiracy, you gotta have a scape goat, a defining object to pin it to.
Reply
post #18 of 61
8/21/08 at 11:22pm
Thread Starter 
C'mon guys he was kidding.

*silence*

He was kidding right? Guys, guys?
Reply
post #19 of 61
8/21/08 at 11:53pm
How anyone could not detect sarcasm when I said Rove might have had a gun to his head is just fucking sad.

Though, I still don't believe that furniture brought that building down.

Fight!
Reply
post #20 of 61
8/22/08 at 7:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
How do you know to trust the guy who wrote it? Maybe Karl Rove had a gun to his head.
Reality is even more dire.

It was the goddamn Batman.
Too soon...?
Reply
post #21 of 61
8/22/08 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I don't expect this will shut up the clueless ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4278874.html
If furnishing fires are taking down a relatively new building in New York, you guys have:

A- The shittiest method of building I've ever seen

And B- You guys are pretty much fucked at EVERY FIRE you'll get.
Reply
post #22 of 61
8/22/08 at 10:22am
Ah conspiracy theories, religion for the atheists. Honestly I view the people who believe that the Twin Towers were knocked by the US in the same light that I hold fundementalist Christians, you're all whackjobs wanting to be comforted by the thought of total and utter control.
Reply
post #23 of 61
8/22/08 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
Ah conspiracy theories, religion for the atheists. Honestly I view the people who believe that the Twin Towers were knocked by the US in the same light that I hold fundementalist Christians, you're all whackjobs wanting to be comforted by the thought of total and utter control.
I'm right there with you. I can't help but get the feeling that conspiracy theorists have their minds set on a specific chain of events, and any evidence that contradicts that chain is dismissed out of hand. Either it's part of the conspiracy or it's incompetent. I'm almost certain there's nothing that could convince them otherwise.

Let's look at this from a different angle: if the Building 7 collapse was an inside job and the culmination of a complex conspiracy, something that presumably would require some intelligence and skill to pull off, why would the fabricated excuse to cover up the conspiracy be furniture fires? How can the people conspiracy theorists claim are smart enough to pull off a conspiracy be the same people that are so inept they can't cover it up with a believable story? Conspiracy theorists want it both ways: the government has to be smart and evil enough to commit terrible acts, but inept enough to come up with lame cover stories? I don't buy that for a minute.
Reply
post #24 of 61
8/22/08 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
I could see buying the theory of why the twin towers went down, though I'm still skeptical. But office chairs burning causing a big steel building to collapse? Nope...no way. No other skyscrapers ever collapsed due to a fire, and your saying furnishings brought that one down? No sprinklers in that thing?
Sneaky Pete, why do you believe that "no other skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire" ? Other skyskrapers have, and they were constructed of steel. The only reason you repeat this is because you heard lying conspiracy hoaxers saying it.
Reply
post #25 of 61
8/22/08 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoDiggity View Post
Sneaky Pete, why do you believe that "no other skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire" ? Other skyskrapers have, and they were constructed of steel. The only reason you repeat this is because you heard lying conspiracy hoaxers saying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
How anyone could not detect sarcasm when I said Rove might have had a gun to his head is just fucking sad.

Though, I still don't believe that furniture brought that building down.

Fight!
Reading is fundamental and shit.
Reply
post #26 of 61
8/22/08 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
On the contrary! I look forward to reading it tonight. It's not often you get to read about a "new phenomenon" in an official government report, at least not since Project Blue Book.
Have you even bothered to look for examples of Steel constructed buildings that have collapsed due to uncontrolled fires? "Never happened before" is a LIE. Why do you cling to it? Why trust the liars who sell it to you?
Reply
post #27 of 61
8/22/08 at 10:57am
[QUOTE=yt;2334531]Thermal expansion is the new cold fusion.

Oh, and "thermite" bombs are real?
Reply
post #28 of 61
8/22/08 at 11:43am
NoDiggity is back. Do you get a ping when someone mentions 9/11 in the politics forum?
Reply
post #29 of 61
8/22/08 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
NoDiggity is back. Do you get a ping when someone mentions 9/11 in the politics forum?
This thread appeared briefly on the front page in the "Now Talking" section.

I believe I've missed a few since the 9-11 thread. You never addressed the fact that your link to prove "near resistanceless fall" of the Towers was a lie, trumped up by falsely equating the point-of-collapse time of fall, to something thrown off the TOP of the Towers. Why did you avoid that problem?
Reply
post #30 of 61
8/22/08 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
Ah conspiracy theories, religion for the atheists.
What a great way to put it, I'll be stealing that one. Thanks.
Reply
post #31 of 61
8/22/08 at 12:52pm
I don't get it. Religious people are immune to conspiracy theories? Huh?
Reply
post #32 of 61
8/22/08 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
I don't get it. Religious people are immune to conspiracy theories? Huh?
According to Dan Brown Religion is the greatest conspiracy of all times. Zing.
Reply
post #33 of 61
8/22/08 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
Reality is even more dire.

It was the goddamn Batman.
Too soon...?
Too soon? Possibly.

But I still laughed, so I'll spend the time in hell with you.
Reply
post #34 of 61
8/22/08 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
If furnishing fires are taking down a relatively new building in New York, you guys have:

A- The shittiest method of building I've ever seen

And B- You guys are pretty much fucked at EVERY FIRE you'll get.
That was actually one of the key takeaways from "102 Minutes" (a book that contained, you know, real, actual journalism). None of those buildings were up to code. It's not a leap at all to imagine that massive, uncontrolled fires could have led to the collapse of WTC 7.
Reply
post #35 of 61
8/22/08 at 1:16pm
Not to mention that having two massive skyscrapers collapse like that could cause damage we couldn't possibly have predicted beforehand, so thinking that everything should be easily and obviously explained seems a little shortsighted. Yes, a nearby building collapsed. I can't imagine why people find that such a strange occurance, considering the circumstances. Frankly, I'm surprised MORE nearby buildings didn't collapse.
Reply
post #36 of 61
8/22/08 at 1:29pm
Conspiracy nuts can't be swayed by mere evidence and science.
But hey, another thread that helps us sort the wheat from the terminally dumb!
Reply
post #37 of 61
8/22/08 at 1:38pm
Well, I'll never think of yt as "dumb", but I do think she has a bit of a blind spot here.

Then again, I'm sure it was the Dave Clark Five on the grassy knoll, so what do I know?
Reply
post #38 of 61
8/22/08 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoDiggity View Post
Sneaky Pete, why do you believe that "no other skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire" ? Other skyskrapers have, and they were constructed of steel. The only reason you repeat this is because you heard lying conspiracy hoaxers saying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoDiggity View Post
Have you even bothered to look for examples of Steel constructed buildings that have collapsed due to uncontrolled fires? "Never happened before" is a LIE. Why do you cling to it? Why trust the liars who sell it to you?
From NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Building 7, Page 33, Executive Summary:

Quote:
On September 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when WTC 7 collapsed. This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LeFors View Post
That was actually one of the key takeaways from "102 Minutes" (a book that contained, you know, real, actual journalism). None of those buildings were up to code. It's not a leap at all to imagine that massive, uncontrolled fires could have led to the collapse of WTC 7.
From NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Building 7, Page 35, Executive Summary:

Quote:
The design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City Building Code of 1968 (NYCBC), with which, by policy, it was to comply. The installed thickness of the thermal insulation on the floor beams was below that required for unsprinklered or sprinklered buildings, but it is unlikely that the collapse of WTC 7 could have been prevented even if the thickness had been consistent with building code requirements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Not to mention that having two massive skyscrapers collapse like that could cause damage we couldn't possibly have predicted beforehand, so thinking that everything should be easily and obviously explained seems a little shortsighted. Yes, a nearby building collapsed. I can't imagine why people find that such a strange occurance, considering the circumstances. Frankly, I'm surprised MORE nearby buildings didn't collapse.
From NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Building 7, Page 35, Executive Summary:

Quote:
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood conventional fires on several floors for almost seven hours. The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girdirs, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse.
Reply
post #39 of 61
8/22/08 at 4:13pm
Why, why, oh fucking why would anyone want to blow up WTC7?
Reply
post #40 of 61
8/22/08 at 4:24pm
Thread Starter 
I thought it was to "cover up the evidence".

yt, your quotes, does that mean you support the report now?
Reply
post #41 of 61
8/22/08 at 4:37pm
I usually post over at the JREF forums, which has a very strict code of conduct that doesn't allow me to fully express how I feel about this subject.

*ahem*... Anyone who subscribes to the notion that 9/11 was an inside job is so goddamn horsefucking stupid they need to have their genitals gnawed off by a coyote to prevent the world from suffering the burden of their mongoloid offspring.

Thanks, CHUD. I feel better.
Reply
post #42 of 61
8/22/08 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
yt, your quotes, does that mean you support the report now?
No, but I think it's funny that you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
I usually post over at the JREF forums, which has a very strict code of conduct that doesn't allow me to fully express how I feel about this subject.

*ahem*... Anyone who subscribes to the notion that 9/11 was an inside job is so goddamn horsefucking stupid they need to have their genitals gnawed off by a coyote to prevent the world from suffering the burden of their mongoloid offspring.

Thanks, CHUD. I feel better.
I'm sure Nick's beaming with pride that chud's the place to go for that.
Reply
post #43 of 61
8/24/08 at 9:17pm
It's so fucking sad when you see actors you used to respect, believe in all this conspiracy nonsense.

It gotta suck living in a NYC apartment though. I would be too scared of heat expansion to even fart in one of those things. They do seem rather flimsy.
Reply
post #44 of 61
8/27/08 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
It's so fucking sad when you see actors you used to respect, believe in all this conspiracy nonsense.


"Screw you!"
Reply
post #45 of 61
8/27/08 at 9:33pm
Personally, I find it much more interesting (and thought-provoking!) that the Bush administration latched onto 9/11 for its policies...
Reply
post #46 of 61
8/28/08 at 2:58pm
"Emergency Warning for Office Workers"
Reply
post #47 of 61
8/28/08 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
You're smarter than this.
Reply
post #48 of 61
8/28/08 at 4:05pm
Apparently not.
Reply
post #49 of 61
8/28/08 at 4:15pm
Did any of you "you're smarter than that" types actually read NIST's WTC 7 report?
Reply
post #50 of 61
8/28/08 at 4:22pm
Not me.
But I don't need to read it to know 9/11 was not an inside job.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › WTC Tower 7 NIST report finally out