Kamatzu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Last I checked, NIST was no joke. However, I think I get to ask you a question now. What do you believe transpired inside 7WTC, and why?I'm interested in why you believe what you believe surrounding 7WTC. And although we've been primarily focused on NIST, I'd be interested to know of any resources that share your conclusion and reasoning. Private Message me the website(s) if you want, I'll hit you up with a link to one of mine.Peace

gtg309v (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"only a little research quickly refute any claims of anything other than a natural collapse"Bull shit. You simply dismiss anything other than a natural collapse. You've shown no research other than saying NIST NIST NIST, but then you don't want to get into what NIST actually says because it's a joke.

Kamatzu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I don't consider myself a crazed NIST-monkey. Their report surely is not a 100% perfect version of what transpired in that building. Maybe different elements failed than those they assume did and so forth.However, I do not subscribe to radical conspiracy theories. Common sense and only a little research quickly refute any claims of anything other than a natural collapse occurring at 7WTC. I'm not saying NIST is the only way to look at this. I'm saying the "planned demolition" is rediculous.

smmeegal (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I am open to many ideas on what happened on 911 including a plane taking down a whole building,melting steel and aliminium,etc because..y'know..never say never and all that, why are people who refuse all other possibilities other than the official govt story and report unable or unwilling to permit other scenarios so hard core about the official version? Persevering with a 'this is the way it happened and thats it( cos they said so) attitude'seems restrictive and narrow.

gtg309v (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Are you saying that their newest conclusions are any more true then their previous statements?Are you saying they didn't fudge the numbers in their computer model? Are you saying that linear beam expansion is realistic when experimental evidence contradicts it? So they didn't change facts about shear studs or ignore their their own fuel load number for each location only permitting 32minutes of fire?You're not too interested in the truth? Support your views with facts or admit defeat.

Kamatzu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

All the drafts, and anything else released before the Final Report, were released to inform readers on NIST's investigation's progress. If they believed they were finished after the first draft, they wouldn't need a second or third, they would just publish their conclusion and move on with their lives.However, I don't believe either one of us is going to change the other's view on this. Shall we call it a truce? It's either that or a perpetual verbal war. I'm not too interested in the latter.

gtg309v (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Their new story wants you to believe thermal expansion is the culprit which caused the collapse, but experimental evidence doesn't support it. On top of that, they admittedly fudged the numbers in their own computer model and changed their story of how long office fires take to burn and move on to another room.

gtg309v (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"They're just saying that the structural damage caused wasn't enough to cause collapse."No that's not just what they are saying. They are saying exactly what the quote says, that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse..." This is contradictory to what they said for years prior claiming that severe structural damage contributed to the collapse of the building. It was lies, and their own map of debris fall contradicts it.

Kamatzu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

However... "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."Initiating the fires is a pretty huge deal. They're just saying that the structural damage caused wasn't enough to cause collapse. Which doesn't contradict anything, it played its part. I like that you've actually opened the report. ...But what do you hypothesized happened?

Kamatzu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Actually, thanks for bringing that to my attention. After finding that chapter in the report, it does make a good point against the diesel being a significant contribution to the fires.