[Winstonm]

The NIST claimed that in investigating the collapse of WTC-7 that it was going to include the possibility of "explosive events" as a cause. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, on March 31, 2006, under solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186, a fixed price purchase order has been awarded by the federal government to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico to research and provide World Trade Center Building Seven structural analysis and collapse hypotheses.

So far, so good.


Now consider this, from a NOVA broadcast on explosive demolition and an interview with Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolotions, Inc:

Quote

Depending on the height of the structure, we’ll work on a couple different floors – usually anywhere from two to six.  The taller the building the higher we work.  We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way.

(emphasis added)

Now consider the contract assignment given by the NIST to ARA:

Quote

Tthe government has retained ARA to "create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven."

(emphasis added.)

If the NIST is truly going to consider explosive events, why did they leave out floors 1-6 where, according to an expert on demolitions, explosive charges would have been placed?

Isn't this like searching the attic and then claiming there is no monster in the basement?

The NIST claims to be examining the possibilites of explosive events - is there anyone left who will still believes they are looking at all possibilites? If you do not create a model initiated in floors 1-6 then it seems they have already ruled out any possibility of controlled demolition - if you don't look for it you won't find it - therefore, any claim by the NIST that controlled demolition could not have caused the collapse must be viewed as political doublespeak - a biased assumption made before examining all the facts.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Nov 5 2006, 02:50 AM, said:

If the NIST is truly going to consider explosive events, why did they leave out floors 1-6 where, according to an expert on demolitions, explosive charges would have been placed?

Isn't this like searching the attic and then claiming there is no monster in the basement?

The NIST claims to be examining the possibilites of explosive events - is there anyone left who will still believes they are looking at all possibilites? If you do not create a model initiated in floors 1-6 then it seems they have already ruled out any possibility of controlled demolition - if you don't look for it you won't find it - therefore, any claim by the NIST that controlled demolition could not have caused the collapse must be viewed as political doublespeak - a biased assumption made before examining all the facts.

Uh. Maybe because it is blatantly obvious that a building brought down by explosives in floors 1-6 would collapse differently? Have you ever seen a video of a controlled demolition of a tall building like this? The whole building seems to start sinking downward, not the top floors starting to fall and taking the lower floors along with them as it happened with the WTC towers.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The whole building seems to start sinking downward,

This is a perfect description of the fall of WTC-7. Watch the video here:
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Quote

not the top floors starting to fall and taking the lower floors along with them as it happened with the WTC towers.

You are speaking of the fall of WTC 1- and 2. Perhaps you are like me and don't know that 3 WTC buildings collapsed - the third without being hit by a plane or suffering any great fire damage.

This post concerns the NIST review of the fall of WTC-7, the third building that collapsed that day - that looks exactly like a controlled demolition.