Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
withnonam3
Haha jävla sopa, man kan ju också förstås fråga sig varför man utelämnar vittnesmål om explosioner när det börjar bli +100
Utelämnar vittnesmål? Menar du att NIST har gjort det bara för att de inte transkriberar varenda ord de analyserat?
Är du lika upprörd över att dessa vittnesmål från brandmän som hörde varningar om att WTC7 var på väg att kollapsa har utelämnats i NIST-dokumenten? : det är nämligen taget från exakt samma underlag - FDNY Oral Stories som de kallas:
(1) In the FDNY oral histories, there are about 60 FDNY members who report hearing warnings of Seven’s collapse.
(2) Of these 60 cases, only two have an unknown degree of certainty. Thirty-one cases qualify as “definite” (Seven is thought definitely to be coming down), while 27 qualify as “indefinite” (Seven might come down).
(3) In 27 cases time could not be determined. Of the remaining cases, 17 warnings were received less than two hours before collapse, while ten were received two or more hours before collapse and six appear to have been received four or more hours before collapse.
(4) In five cases it is unknown who ascertained that the building was headed for possible or certain collapse. Of the remaining cases, seven FDNY members personally ascertained or affirmed the possible or definite collapse, while in 50 cases this judgment was made by others, typically official superiors. (There are two cases where the judgment was made on the basis of both self and other—hence the failure of these numbers to add up to the correct total.)
(5) In 38 cases no cause of collapse is given. Of the remaining cases, no member gives other (non-fire) damage as sole cause of collapse; 15 members give fire alone as cause of collapse; and seven members give a combination of fire and other damage as cause of collapse.