Quote:
Originally Posted by Polyphemous
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. It can lose its temper far below its melting point, which is what happened to the structural steel in the towers.
|
Again, these bogus NIST report contentions have already been debunked in this thread
1) NIST only allowed 3 weeks for a public peer review of their bogus report. This was a report that consisted of 10K pages. It took years and over 200K man hours to produce this report. Yet they gave only 3 weeks to peer review it before proclaiming it was "case closed science"
2) The assumptions NIST used for when the fires started and how hot they were burning completely contradicted eyewitness reports
3) The NIST report also contradicts itself on when fires started on specific floors and what temperatures they were
4) NIST made wildly unsupported assumptions on how much flammable and combustable material actually occupied certain floors and relied upon eyewitness information to make these assumptions of people that didn't even work in these areas on those floors
5) NIST only assumed RDX was used an explosive. This is in violation of NFPA protocol. That's case closed right there that NIST is nothing more than a Government smoke screen
6) NIST wrote a legal disclaimer in their report which states engineers cannot be held responsible for falsifying evidence
7) NIST states in their report that no tall building had ever collapsed due to fire (which is true). Amazing that we had 3 major engineering structural firsts in the history of building making on 9/11) yet the media was reporting foreknowledge of these impending collapses before these building actually fell.
BBC even reported that building 7 collapsed when it was still standing. The reporter is reporting that it collapsed while you can still see building 7 standing in the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
8) NIST acknowledges that the first 100 ft of the building 7 collapse happened at free fall speed. Fire cannot do this.
9) No engineer that worked on the report was ever given access to all of the information and all of the evidence. They were grouped in bubbles.
10) The NIST computer models of the collapse did not match the actual collapse
11) NIST has never published their modeling data. It has never been peer reviewed
12) NIST assumed no thermal conductivity of steel or concrete in their model. Steel doesn't conduct heat?
13) NIST doctored their model to get maximum thermal expansion. They never even calculated the concrete in their assumptions when concrete has the same thermal efficiency as steel. They expand at the same rate. Why do you think they reinforce steel with concrete in the first place? The concrete adds lateral support to resist thermal expansion
14) NIST completely the sheer studs that were used to reinforce the concrete and steel. Why would they do that?
15) NIST completely ignored eyewitness accounts of explosions
And to try to claim that all the 9/11 Predictive Programming (with very specific references to demolition and terrorism leading up to the false flag attack that are littered throughout all music/movies for literally decades) is just "coincidence theory" and laughably naive. 9/11 has to be the most popular date in movie history. What amazing accuracy. All random chance or something.
If you're a betting man you should ask The Beastie Boys who they like in the 5th
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]