PART 2: Fictitious Gouge Launches Design Flaw Myth and Collapse Initiation Fantasy

[wildbilln864]

Considering the lack of evidence, as we outlined in Part 1, NIST's early insistence on the 10-story gouge, as dramatized in the 2005 Popular Mechanics magazine article, makes no sense, until you realize that the agency was reverse engineering its theory for the demise of Building 7. In other words, because NIST's 2004 preliminary report contended that the east penthouse could cave in (as the videos show) if column 79 were to buckle, it had to make up a story to account for the failure of that column in order to sell its theory to the scientific community and to the public.

The trouble is, NIST had no legitimate reason to cite a failed column, since it had absolutely no evidence showing that any column under the east penthouse had been subjected to massive fires. What it did have, however, was what is referred to in polite company as "creative thinking."
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/197-news-media-events-3-of-6-nist-fraud-3.html

[hack89]

1. So eyewitness accounts by the FDNY are fictitious?

as were their accounts that they were monitoring a bulge in the building for hours before it collapsed? Ok.

[frankfacts]

2. Accounts unsworn and untested in a court n/t

[hack89]

3. That doesn't make them fictitious.

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

unless you think the FDNY is in on the plot.

Now if you could produce some witnesses that say differently you might have something. Or perhaps some video?

[frankfacts]

4. Unsworn and untested means unproven, or more simply put; nothing but hot air n/t

[hack89]

5. So present us your evidence so we can compare accounts

because right now their eyewitness accounts are the only ones we have.

[frankfacts]

6. Where's your evidence?

[hack89]

7. Besides the FDNY accounts that have been posted here regularly for the past 10 years? Nt

[frankfacts]

9. Not sure you know what evidence is. See my comments above for a refresher n/t

[hack89]

10. It is more than you have, isn't it?

Can you provide any eyewitness testimony that says something different? Thought not.

[frankfacts]

11. Now you're talking about something other than evidence n/t

[hack89]

12. So we both have no evidence?

Looks like an inconclusive draw at worse.

[frankfacts]

13. The "something" in my post title referred to the "it" in your post title

So what's this "we" shit

[hack89]

14. I thought you believed that there was no damage to WTC 7

I thought we were on different sides of the issue. Apparently that is not the case. Sorry for the confusion.

[nationalize the fed]

16. WTC 7 Damage pic

NIST WTC7 FAQ

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.

21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours.

The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

22. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

WTC 7 Fast and Furious