Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Sorry, jomper, Jazzy has facts, figures and physics to back him up, you have theory that ignores the facts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    I still have a hard time understanding why people keep using eyewitness accounts only when it fits their story. First off, that's borderline conspiracy (when a CT uses eyewitness accounts it's only because 'it fits their preconceived notions etc' but when a debunker uses eyewitness accounts it's ok because it fits the narrative of what they think happened? 'Scuse that last part, I meant 'official story').
    Second of all, who said anything about firemen being prepped? You're just suggesting conspiracies at this point, and further derailing the topic of conversation, which is about NIST not testing for explosives.
     
  3. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    We have discussed the reason they didn't test, many times. If you have someone that was shot in the head in a robbery, the ME doesn't run extensive toxicology tests. The cause of death is KNOWN.

    Y'all nitpick the any of the reports by the NIST or other experts, and yet I have failed to see an explanation or how or when or who could have set up a controlled demolition.

    Also, they did have folks from one of the Controlled demolition companies looking at and photographing the debris. They didn't see anything that would say that it was demoed


    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

    Here is more evidence of buildings 'pancaking'. These didn't even need a fire.


    http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building_Collapse_Cases/2000_Commonwealth



    http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building_Collapse_Cases/Bailey_Crossroad


    http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building_Collapse_Cases/Harbor_Cay_Condo
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Hey, don't look at me. I never suggested it was a controlled demolition.
    I'm once again simply suggesting that the thread topic is being derailed. Pancaked buildings? How does that tie in with the WTCs being/not being controlled demolitions or NIST not testing for such?
     
  5. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I offer the pancaked buildings for those that feel that the buildings should have fallen over.

    I ask you this, Do you expect the ME to do a toxicology report on someone that died from a gunshot in a robbery?

    The testing was not done, because all the steel had been mixed up. Real life is not a TV script. What we see on CSI and such shows is romanticized , cases are not solved all that neat and quickly. All the needed evidence may not be available.
     
  6. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    To fall as a controlled demolition, all the components of a controlled demolition must be present. WTC7 did not have all the components of a controlled demolition. The building did have all the components of an out of control fire.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member


    The top of WTC2 did tip to the east as it began to collapse. However, it was still connected to the rest of the building as it began to collapse and began to tip back to some degree.

    The top 15 floors of WTC1 collapsed straight down upon the remaining 95. What should and did happen was related to the manner of structural failure in each Tower, which was different, due to the manner in which each plane had struck each Tower and the pattern of the spread of fire.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member


    So you're saying that because a toxicology report doesn't necessarily have to be done on someone who died from a gunshot wound, that means no agency should have inspected the 9/11 site for explosives?

    I see that you're trying to make the point that they (whoever was in charge of making this decision) basically KNEW what happened and therefore didn't need to test for explosives.
     
  9. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    No - he's saying that there's no need to test for explosives because there's no evidence that explosives were used, and plenty of evidence for structural collapse after fires.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    If you are trying to determine the cause of a death, you start by looking at the obvious--a gun shot wound, found in a river, etc. Let's take the body found in a river. Did they drown? Why were they found in a river? Where they fishing/boating? Did anyone see then jump of something? and on and on. You eliminate the obvious first. You don't start off testing them for say Sarin.

    That is the way any investigation works for the cause of a death or an accident.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    No. I think you're missing the point.

    Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable because they aren't normally professional observers observing events in the course of their profession. The firemen's eyewitness observations were far less unreliable. They were using their professional expertise and experience to observe the condition of WTC7.

    In this event, it is true that everyone there thought they were still under attack even after the formative events had already been carried out (the two planes hit the towers), because there was no indication otherwise.

    It is also true that during those hours of horror, confusion, and alarm, large fire-induced or fall-induced explosive events were likely to be interpreted as developments of an attack rather than consequences of the fires.

    But by the time WTC7 collapsed, the fireman had already concluded around three hours previously that it was going to do so.

    So when you choose to ignore what they said, you are declaring that either a) they were unreliable (as if they were average "Joes") or b) they were lying.

    Well they weren't average eyewitnesses, were they? And if they were lying, then they must have been doing so on the orders from someone who had just murdered six hundred of their comrades. That doesn't seem very likely, does it?

    On the evidence of the many fireman (you know, people who have spent their working lives dealing with buildings being destroyed by fire) it also seems pretty reasonable not to bother checking for explosives in such an event. Especially when there were so many other more urgent tasks to carry out.

    If large damaged steel buildings go out of shape, sagging or bulging, with a large fire burning within them with no signs of running out of combustible material, they are going to come down. This isn't a hypothesis. It's a certainty, with maths and physics behind it. It's calculable, and of course it was computer-simulated. The technique used is a normal engineering practice these days. I wish I had had access to it during my career, but during that time it was only used in mainframe computing, to which I had no access.

    [...]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Any further posting in this thread in violation of the politeness policy will be immediately deleted and the poster banned for one week.
     
  13. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I expect a coroner to base his findings on an examination of the body of evidence. Without a body of evidence to examine, cause can't be legally determined. To wade through the soup of analogies with you, think of a man seen by many falling from a rooftop into a river. Certainly, the fall could have killed him. Certainly, many people saw him falling. Certainly, when the fall was over, he was dead. How is it safe to assume the fall was what killed him, or that he jumped himself, before the body is found? If the river sweeps the body away, is it automatically a suicide?
    Perhaps some effort should be made to retrieve and examine the body, so an accurate conclusion can be reached? All it would take is the will and man-power to put boats and nets in the water, right? Sure, it's sad to say it'd depend on who did the falling, but in this case it was Uncle Sam himself... so why the hell not try?

    Oh... Jeez... all mixed up...? Well, shit... I mean... then we'd have to like... SORT it or something. And then like... try and determine which bit is which and stuff.... and that would take like, a year or something... maybe three. Cost like, fuck, 100-million...? Maaaaaan, that's like... a LOT of work. Fuckit, lets just spend 6 years rendering some cool CG and go to WAR, baby..!!
    No one's talking about Horatio Caine making inappropriate puns before solving the case with an 'enhanced' photo of Dick Cheney in the reflection on someone's eyeball holding a detonator switch. We're talking about the hard, dirty, grueling work of moving, separating, examining, cataloging, and then 'assembling' the structural steel of WTC 7, with a focus on locating and studying the catalyst of its collapse. It could have been done, there were people willing to do it who protested at not having the chance, and even after it was realized the 'mistake' of rapid destruction of evidence was being made, costly but effective measures could have been taken to locate and retrieve the steel which had already been shipped. You're right. The real world isn't a TV script, and serious questions aren't answered with stylish pant-suits and nonexistent technologies the next day. Just the same, answers by stylishly dressed men and women on the Television were offered up as truth the day after 9/11, and with repeated lines that seem a bit scripted, wouldn't you say?
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2013
  14. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    These would be the same firemen that long ago codified a standard procedure to test for accelerants when investigating fire, right?
     
  15. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Great, except we're not talking about a death or toxicology report. We're talking about a massive, chaotic terrorist attack on multiple locations, and the subsequent investigation that followed.
    Again, this was a terrorist attack. Terrorists frequently use bombs, that's FACT. We have multiple firefighters claiming they heard explosions; in the chaos of the day, this is simply passed on as being error, that these explosions were just random side effects of the office fires.
    So in such a chaotic, terrorist attack, they were 100% sure no explosives were used in any way (I'm not talking controlled demolition, I'm just saying any sort of explosives) even after multiple witnesses hear explosions. How convenient, don't you think?
    So much for an investigation, it seems like they had their answer from the start. Office fires and only office fires, no ifs ands or buts.
     
  16. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Yes.

    They already knew what their "accelerant" was. WTC 1.

    I'm glad that you now appear to accept that the firemen weren't "eyewitnesses" but "professional consultants".
     
  17. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    But a bomb or even 3 or 4 of them would not have caused what we saw. It would have taken months of preparation to have set charges to implode the buildings. Those charges would have had to be hardened against the fires, and some way of setting them off at the appropriate times would have been needed. Now all the folks that set those charges would have to have been 'disappeared' or something. There would have been a Manning or a Snowden among them.

    The 'explosions' that were reported were small local ones, that have been explained by things like fire extinguisher, Generator fuel and other things exploding.

    There is zero evidence that explosives were used, the buildings did not fall into their own footprints, no matter how many times you try to say they did.

    What is interesting is that the folks saying it was a controlled demolition will use these maps to try to prove their 'points', when what the maps show is what the experts say happen. The interior dropped and the exterior fell second and part of it fell away from the footprint.


    as3.amazonaws.com_nasathermalimages_public_images_fema_debris_distribution.
     
  18. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    That's a great diagram, Cairenn. Very interesting.

    It's possible to distinguish the fall of the external column steelwork - which moved out at right angles to the faces of the towers in a cruciform pattern. This is consistent with ejection due to buckling.

    Explosives would have moved the debris out radially from the explosion sources, and the distribution would have been circular in plan form.

    But it isn't circular in plan, is it?
     
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's also more consistent with the exterior falling away in large panels, folding outwards.
     
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Still at it Cairenn. Trotting out the testing for RHS.

    If someone is shot or stabbed to death in the U.K, a full autopsy will be done. Protocols will be followed and everything examined. That's toxicology, liver, heart, brain, lungs condition ... everything.

    Boston made it clear long ago that the steel beams are all coded so they can tell which beam it was and where it came from. I should have realised this myself but didn't. Many items are coded in this way.
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Building 7's steel was not coded.
     
  22. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Which would offer a clear method for distinguishing it from the WTC 1/2 steel, no?
     
  23. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Are you sure that they test for rare things as well? Do you have any evidence that the first set of tests include checking for say ricin poisoning or something not expected?
     
  24. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    But not which floor component it was out of the forty-seven floors of WTC7, for instance. Once cleared it would be impossible to tell. The same with the columns, once they had been taken away.

    I don't believe WTC2's steel reached WTC7.

    That IS ejection due to buckling. Different wording, same meaning.
     
  25. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    It doesn't seem that they always do in the US.




     
  26. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Even leaving aside the fact that there is witness testimony of explosions inside WTC 7 before the towers fell, I'm sure any reputable fire investigator would agree that what Jazzy describes here is the correct and professional way to approach an investigation.

    Pictures like this certainly prove beyond reasonable doubt that every single fire in WTC 7 was definitely caused by falling debris, and wholly justify throwing fire investigation manuals out the window on this occasion.

    No need for proper forensics if it happened on 9/11, is there, Jazzy?

    arense.com_general65_WTC7firesnorthface.

    Between Cairenn's increasingly laboured toxicology analogy and your focus on the firemen, Jazzy, my point about the geopolitical aspect and impact of NIST's failure to test for explosives seems in danger of being lost. I have no idea why you imagined bringing up the firefighters was a relevant response to this point in the first place.

    As I said, your unwillingness to address the geopolitical context of NIST's failures highlights your lack of compassion for the innocent people caught up on the other side of the wars launched on the back of 9/11, as well as an inability to imagine what these people might become.

    Similarly your unwillingness to address the importance of falsifiability in scientific research and your burden-shifting on this point highlights your false perspective on the demands of the scientific method in this important case.

    However, if you want to continue to argue that conflicting eyewitness testimony justifies not following fire investigation protocols then, well, it's your petard to hoist: go right ahead. We can come back to the other questions later.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  27. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Difficult, costly, painstaking... but impossible? They wouldn't be trying to rebuild it using the same pieces, they'd be trying to establish which specific sections were the first to fail, and what caused that. Identifying where structural steel that failed initially was positioned within the structure would be a puzzle worthy of NIST computer models, but finding the steel which initiated the collapse and examining it/testing it would be job 1, and I don't see why that should be impossible. Surely, if the collapse was due to concentrated fire-damage on a particular support/s, those particular support/s would have endured the most obvious heat damage. If there was any explosive/chemical involvement, surely that too would be quite recognizable with a thorough physical examination.

    It's almost certain WTC2 steel was touching WTC7 steel at one point, likely on a large tanker/in the smelter of a foundry in China.

    Detective walks into the Coroner's office, wanting a preview of his report. He sees to his surprise the body is still dressed.
    "Er, what's the story, Doc...?" asks the detective.
    "Got Shot!" barks the Coroner.
    "Yeah... but how'd he die..?" asks the detective.
    "Bullet, Stupid!" barks the Coroner.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  28. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Explosions are not the same thing as bombs or controlled demolition.

    Sometimes the ideal is not possible. There was NO way to ID which steel was which. If investigating the cause had been a primary focus after 9/11, it might have possible. One would expect for WTC 7 to be lying on top of the debris from the WTC. But and that is a big but, the recovery of possible survivors and bodies were considered more important.

    Would you have told the families that 'No we can't look for your family member, we have to map the site and tag every piece of steel, so we can see if someone imploded the buildings."

    What evidence do you have that explosives were used? You don't like my body analogy, but it is proper and reasonable here. You don't look for an exotic cause of death when there is an obvious one.
     
  29. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    There was no one in building 7. If rescue efforts were the primary focus, clearing the WTC 7 site would not have been job 1. While hosts of first responders hand-dug in the rubble of towers 1 and 2 in a desperate search for survivors, a great convoy of garbage trucks was carrying massive amounts of WTC 7 rubble and steel out of the area, all evening and all night long, and every day thereafter for some time. That wasn't rescue-efforts, that was clean-up. The clean-up, especially in the case of Building 7, could certainly have waited a few days.

    The sentiment of your analogy is false. You're insisting there's absolutely no reason for NIST to test for anything 'exotic' like accelerants in the WTC 7 rubble, comparing testing for accelrants in an office fire to testing for rare poisons in a gunshot victim.... in spite of the fact it's part of the fire-code of most every developed area that accelerants be tested for in the event of a serious fire. Did NIST have the authority to choose not to follow the basic, standard procedure? Sure. But why in the world would they make that choice? "'cause why bother, it's so obvious"?
     
  30. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Only if you support everything NIST says without question.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  31. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Where is that from please?

    The WTC7 rubble fell on top of the debris from one of the WTC towers.
     
  32. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    FEMA, as stated. Among other places, this was recently posted in a thread you were contributing to: The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  33. One thing you need to keep in mind Grieves, is the state of Ground Zero after the buildings came down.
    It was very hard to move through. Not only because there were still some fires but because it was a big rubble pile that was very dangerous.
    Point being you could only send so many people in at a time.
    And considering how many first responders there are in the NY metropolitan area, well they couldn't all go in at one time.
    They probably ran in shifts and put in as many as they safely could at one time.
    Point being there would have been enough people to start working on debris removal without it affecting the rescue operation.
    Whether they should have kept the debris or not is a different question.
     
  34. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    There was a huge amount of debris and steel beams were not a high priority.

    And you are still ignoring the fact that much of WTC7 was on top of debris from one of trade centers.

    A flange wouldn't be useful to test for explosives, would it?
     
  35. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Jenning's testimony I was fully aware of. Assuming it to be true makes no difference to my understanding of the effect WTC1 had on WTC7. Why he recalled explosions prior to the collapses of the towers I have no explanation for. There is too little information to come to a conclusion about. Do you possess additional information?

    One thing that has always puzzled me was his stepping over bodies, when elsewhere I was assured that WTC7 had no people in it. Some of his testimony seems similar to experiences encountered in both WTC1 and 2. It's strangely inconsistent.

    arense.com_general65_WTC7firesnorthface.
    It rather depends on the time it was taken, was it before the collapses?

    Think what you wish. I'm very forensically-minded, myself.

    Then you still didn't absorb it. Well, keep trying.

    You did? I thought I addressed it. It isn't relevant here. I didn't launch the wars, and as you're unable to understand my point about the firemen, it would seem you'd be stretching a little too far attempting to imagine my powers of imagination.

    Falsifiability isn't always possible. Large lightweight steel buildings may be simply sabotaged in the manner of the Brighton hotel bombing. It's a problem.

    I think you have had difficulties absorbing the various timelines involved here. Keep working at it. Perhaps your reducing the levels of sarcasm and hypocrisy will help clarify your thinking. :)

    Not necessarily. These lightweight steel buildings have column instability issues. The columns can be made to fail without themselves suffering fire damage. It isn't necessarily a question of support or fixings. All floors will sag with a fire beneath them, and then they will snap their fixings. If continuously welded to their walls they will pull them in, and the wall will fail in buckling. The hardest, and the most important thing to determine is the sequence of events. I'm not sure that the greatest heat damage would necessarily signify the onset of collapse.

    The rest of your post was useless. Why did you bother?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  36. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Speaking for myself: I have a dim fascination with analysing the disingenuous. It's like a hobby.
     
  37. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    And this is what I mean by a lack of compassion.
     
  38. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    I know there were reports that WTC7 started to be impacted by debris from the moment of impact on the Towers...a piece of landing gear or dead bodies flying thru a window from 60 stories up might sound like an "explosion".

    regardless- what do "explosions" have to do with the the building collapsing 6 hours later?

    There were a lot of reports of what people thought were "bombs" and given the context of the day its easy to see why they jumped to that conclusion. Yet, none of the explosions match up with any known method of controlled demolition- happening a random and various times in various places throughout the day. We do know there were lot of things breaking, burning, falling etc over the course of the day (falling elevators, people jumping, lots of combustibles in a fully loaded office building.

    An "explosion" does not equal a "bomb".
     
  39. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    In sum, explosions =/= explosives is the complete argument of why you think it was wholly unnecessary to test for the possibility and thereby ignore standard investigative procedure. Are you comfortable with that summation?

    Of course, it is not the case that there were no explosions at the time of collapse, but let me ask you if I have expressed your position properly first.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  40. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    If embers from a grass/forest fire set a house on fire, do you really think that they check for accelerates ? Maybe if it was one house and no one saw the fire catch, but in one of the forest fires where many houses are burned. If you have any evidence that they do, please share it.

    Why do you continue to ignore the opinions of experts, like the article in "Structure Magazine"?



    I had a minor explosion on my outdoor, non pro propane cooktop. I had not been good about cleaning it and grease caught fire and exploded a mostly empty bic lighter that had wandered under the burner. There are many products in our homes and in offices that will explode in a fire .


    http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/disaster/haz/hazmat.html
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.