You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #178: Actually, there is no reason to believe it means anything other than what it says [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #174
178. Actually, there is no reason to believe it means anything other than what it says
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 07:22 AM by procopia
I do agree that context is important, not only the context of the NIST letter to WTC family members, but the context of the portion of the letter NIST responded to, which says:

"NIST was statutorily tasked with telling the American people, the 9/11 victimsfamily members, independent researchers, and the U.S. government how and why the WTC Towers collapsed...

...Requesters further request that NIST revise the WTC Report so that the
information presented therein is useful in that it is helpful, beneficial, or
serviceable to its intended users in accordance with applicable information quality
standards. To comply with this request, NIST must revise section 6.14.4 by adding a
detailed computer simulation or physical structural simulation detailing the behavior of
the structure after collapse initiation. NISTs implication that total and complete
structural collapse and the destruction of the entire building was inevitable following
collapse initiation is unsupported by the laws of physics, logic, history, data,
calculations, science of any kind, computer models, or physical models. Again, NIST is
advised that using circular logic (ie. trying to use the fact that the Towers did, in fact,
totally and completely collapse as seen in videos to prove that total and complete
collapse was imminent following collapse initiation) is wholly inadequate to satisfy
NISTs burden of explaining how and why the buildings collapsed. Even if a collapse
event were initiated as NIST has suggested, NIST still has the burden of explaining why
the Twin Towers suffered total collapses, when all other high rise fires in modern steelframed
structures have resulted in no or only very limited and partial collapses.
Furthermore, it is clear that, under the NCST Act, NIST was required to explain why and
how the entire building completely failed to stand, not just how collapse initiation was
reached."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoN...

Family members wanted to know why the buildings collapsed as they did, so quickly and symmetrically, the first steel framed buildings ever to totally collapse because of fire when others have burned longer and hotter. But the NIST report did not address the collapses beyond initiation. That is why NIST was forced to admit,

"...we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC