The REAL question is, how many Truthers are going to READ the final WTC7 report?

[1337m4n]

Forget "when will the final NIST report on WTC7 come out".

The question is, are Truthers going to read it with an open mind?

Or have you already decided that it's wrong no matter what it says?

 

[Blender Head]

Truthers will come back and ask the same question in reverse.

 

[DGM]

Forget "when will the final NIST report on WTC7 come out".

The question is, are Truthers going to read it with an open mind?

Or have you already decided that it's wrong no matter what it says?

The contents of the report is of no importance. They will parrot what their leaders tell them too like the good little sheep they are.

 

[thebestodb]

Considering the amount of attention it gets, it might just become one of the most read pieces of history.

 

[Apollo20]

What final NIST Report on WTC 7?

I think it's quite possible there will never be one!

 

[RedIbis]

We already know what to expect. Shyam Sunder made it clear: single column failure due to "normal office building fires."

 

[DGM]

Considering the amount of attention it gets, it might just become one of the most read pieces of history.

I don't think so. Other than with the CT/Debunker crowd nobody is really pushing or waiting for it. It will arrive with little or no fan-fair in the engineering world.

 

[DGM]

We already know what to expect. Shyam Sunder made it clear: single column failure due to "normal office building fires."

So? Are you saying anything they produce is a sham. Are they in on it?

 

[RedIbis]

So? Are you saying anything they produce is a sham. Are they in on it?

No, I'm saying that what is important is that these officially sanctioned reports are published so that they can be held to a high standard of scrutiny.

I'm particularly interested in how engineers might address single column failure due to "normal office building fires." This will be interesting if they ever do release their report.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

We already know what to expect. Shyam Sunder made it clear: single column failure due to "normal office building fires."

And you have a problem with this. . . how?

 

[RedIbis]

And you have a problem with this. . . how?

We were probably posting at the same time, but my response just above yours addresses this.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm particularly interested in how engineers might address single column failure due to "normal office building fires." This will be interesting if they ever do release their report.

They will probably stop designing buildings with such large and vulnerable transfer truss systems.

 

[DGM]

No, I'm saying that what is important is that these officially sanctioned reports are published so that they can be held to a high standard of scrutiny.

I'm particularly interested in how engineers might address single column failure due to "normal office building fires." This will be interesting if they ever do release their report.

I agree! However do you believe (as I do) that WTC 7's design performed as well as can be expected? The building stood long enough for everyone to get out safely. What else would you expect a building design to be able to do (and be economically feasible)?

 

[RedIbis]

They will probably stop designing buildings with such large and vulnerable transfer truss systems.

Your working backwards from a conclusion. Your logic is that since it collapsed so suddenly it must be from a design flaw, as opposed to finding out what caused the collapse, design flaw or otherwise.

 

[RedIbis]

What else would you expect a building design to be able to do (and be economically feasible)?

Not collapse from normal office bldg fires.

 

[rcronk]

I thought the fires happened after another building fell on it, ripping a hole down it's south side, damaging its structure, causing it to creek, lean, and move. But that's just according to testimony of firemen who were standing nearby combined with transit data that showed it was moving hours before it collapsed.

I really think the "truth" movement is being dishonest as they continually ignore specific parts of the WTC 7 evidence and testimony. After so many years, it's getting really tiring.

 

[DGM]

Not collapse from normal office bldg fires.

That's not what happened to building 7 now was it? Nothing about what happened to that building could be considered "normal". If there was water to fight those fires don't you think that building would still stand today (without the damage)?

 

[RedIbis]

That's not what happened to building 7 now was it? Nothing about what happened to that building could be considered "normal". If there was water to fight those fires don't you think that building would still stand today (without the damage)?

Tell it to Shyam Sunder.

 

[T.A.M.]

What final NIST Report on WTC 7?

I think it's quite possible there will never be one!

I think it is quite possible that we will be visited by aliens at some point.



The report will come...and then what? As usual, if it has not covered every ill conceived CT, the truthers will bitch and whine, bitch and whine, file petitions, create a dozen more worthless videos, and then what?

TAM

 

[DGM]

Tell it to Shyam Sunder.

Tell him what? You don't think he wouldn't acknowledge the fact that there was:
(A) No water to fight the fires.
(B) Additional ventilation to the building (to feed the fires) due to external damage.

You don't really think he wouldn't consider these to be contributing factors do you?