Discussion in '9/11' started by ColtCabana, Sep 8, 2013.
You do like to go off topic for some reason... can't imagine why.
How is it not contradictory?
Nigro says he made the decision on his own
So we have 'reliable reporting'... that 7 was afire on nearly all floors, fully involved in flame, creaking and ready to fall?
We have warnings at least from 12 noon and I recall there were news reports of 7 imminent collapse as early as 11am... to
"about a half an hour later it came down." and "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
The reports do not match the visual evidence they do not match NIST's report and they do not agree with each other by a country mile.
Were these features designed to withstand the impact of jet planes at 500pmh?
This lady in the Empire state building miraculously survived the free-fall. Curiously, the actual cause of the free-fall was plane crashing into the building.
You have the man in charge of the elevators in question, there on scene, describing what happened...and yet somehow you disregard it. Just to clarify- you do not believe this guy for whatever reason?
Clearly the safety features of the elevators DID fail when sliced through with a jet airliner. That IS a reasonable explanation. If an falling elevator was being followed by a blast of burning jet fuel- there would be a fiery explosion. How do you explain all the burns and smell of kerosene which are consistent with jet fuel bursting forth from elevator shafts?
So we know for a fact that elevators crashed down despite their safety features. What is more likely- that the safety features failed due to an impact with a jet plane? Or that explosives were used to cause the safety features to fail almost simultaneously with the impacts of the planes...and give the that it was appearance of jet fuel assisted.??
That could be. I am unclear as to where they were and when. Is it possible they were massing in the lobby of one building when the other was hit and sent debris crashing into it? Their description is identical to the accounts of elevator damage in the lobbies. It highlights that there were many things that could have happened that could have been misconstrued as a "bomb".
It was Grieves who brought up the idea that elevators crashing to the lobby was "nonsense"- I simply pointed out the bunk.
Elevators are designed to not allow doors to open unless there is an elevator in place. The planes CUT all the cables, the fail safes are not designed to handle that.
Am I not understanding? Both Nigro and Silverstein wanted the firefighters pulled out, no?
I have never personally seen any building demolished at all.
However that doesn't answer the question, and I am unaware of any answer being given in any other thread.
Certainly I have seen discussion here in other threads why buildings did NOT collapse - however that is begging a point.
My question is why a building that DOES collapse would do so at something other than freefall speed if it was not deliberately demolished.
And it was not at free fall speed. Say I claim I make $100,000 dollars a year on a loan application and it turns out that I only make $70,000, can I claim that that is 'almost' 100 grand? Nope. Then why do the truthers keep claiming freefall speed for the entire collapse when it wasn't. Some things fell off at nearly free fall speed, but that is not uncommon. Gravity is a constant.
Gravity is indeed a constant and that is why what you are discussing here is freefall acceleration, not freefall speed. That there was a period of freefall acceleration in the descent of WTC 7 is not in question. Exactly why there was a period of freefall acceleration is in question, as this shows that there was absolutely no structural resistance in play at that point. 2.25 seconds of no structural resistance at all in the collapse of an absolutely massive building is a powerful reason for a forensic investigation to fully explore and eliminate the possibility of some kind of accelerant being involved.
Of course, NIST did not do this which is why the emphasis must be placed very firmly on the word "should" in Chief Nigro's statement "That [the NIST] report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail". The report should have eliminated the alternative hypotheses exhaustively (saying "there wasn't a big enough bang" is really pathetic) before presenting a fire-induced progressive collapse as the most likely or reasonable conclusion, but then this was a conclusion that NIST reached through the examination of precisely zero physical evidence.
Now please explain how an accelerant increased the rate of collapse.
The buildings caught on fire because they were hit by pieces of a flaming building. No accelerant needed for that.
Accelerant is the description given in the "gold standard" of fire investigation manuals, NFPA 921, as in
which NFPA 921 specifies should be tested for in cases of "high order damage"
Thermite is specifically mentioned
You move logically from the statement that the building was on fire to assume what you seem to think is the obvious conclusion that it must inevitably have been utterly and totally destroyed in a matter of seconds exactly how?
So you are saying that it was thermite that took it down. That dog don't hunt, buddy. It would have taken a large amount of thermite to do it, and since it doesn't like to cut through a vertical surface, some method would have had to be devised to keep it in place long enough.
The police dept doesn't do a DNA study of some equine dung at a crime scene to see if the criminal escaped on a zebra or a unicorn.
Appeal to incredulity. This should have been a forensic investigation. The best forensic fire investigation protocol in the US, accepted by courts throughout the nation, does not quibble on imagined technicalities in a case like this. It is clear and unequivocal that accelerants should be tested for if damage is severe.
Isn't this what you would expect from an investigation: a thorough and scientific undertaking, that makes no assumptions at the outset and examines the evidence before drawing conclusions?
Here we go with the arbitrary and conclusion-assuming metaphors again. You don't construct a logical argument out of conclusion-assuming metaphors I'm afraid and you certainly can't assume that fire will inevitably bring a massive building straight down in a matter of seconds.
So: You move logically from the statement that the building was on fire to assume what you seem to think is the obvious conclusion that it must inevitably have been utterly and totally destroyed in a matter of seconds exactly how?
You were the person that brought up thermite as the cause. Thermite is NOT used for this purpose because it is not suitable.
Just because you can't understand how it could, doesn't mean that the experts and others can't.
And now the bare assertion fallacy. I didn't bring up thermite specifically, I mentioned it in reference to NFPA 921 which Chief Nigro of all people would have reason to expect NIST to have followed as a bare minimum of its investigative process. But NIST let him down.
This statement makes no sense, coming from you. It is most applicable in support of my position: just because you can't understand how accelerants might be applied in a case like this doesn't mean that experts can't.
Again, you are making an extraordinary logical leap along the lines of "fire in building = complete and total destruction of the building in a matter of seconds, including a period of free-fall", and therefore you think it's fine to ignore investigation protocols.
If you're comfortable with that kind of "logic", that's fine by me, but you have to accept it's not really logic at all.
You can stop the silliness. You brought it up. To assert that mentioning didn't mean you thought that was the cause of the collapse, is only fooling you.
I need to go back and see what was said about that time of 'free fall' you are asserting happened. I know that I have seen it debunked.
Nonsense. The point is made. Chief Nigro would doubtless have expected NIST to have followed the NFPA 921 code at an absolute minimum when he made his statement at the start of this thread. NFPA 921 is clear and unequivocal in demanding testing for accelerants in the event of high-order damage, and mentions thermite as an example of an accelerant you asked to be defined.
Even if you manage to suggest that the free-fall period was slightly less than free-fall (and I have evidence that it was indeed free-fall, but it involves measuring the speed of descent in the video evidence, and I know your computer is too ancient to play... videos) then the point remains undebunked.
So you have 'discovered' something that NO ONE else has noticed. Sorry if I don't consider that any evidence.
I am not the only person that can debunk it. Why are you acting like I am? Convince Mick or Jazzy that your 'evidence' is correct, and then I will discuss it. Until then, you can talk to someone else.
Of course not. Freefall has been an issue from the start, although it took David Chandler to force NIST to acknowledge it and expose the risible sleight of hand it undertook with its collapse timings to try to obfuscate the fact (youtube link provided here for anyone that has a computer that was built this century):
I'll take that as an admission of defeat on your part.
Why don't you join me, Cairenn, in calling for Chief Nigro's expectations of NIST's WTC 7 investigation to be fulfilled by a new investigation that follows rather than ignores the clearly defined and forensically necessary requirements of the NFPA 921 code that he probably knows by heart?
Freefall has never been an issue except for truthers. There's nothing at all unreasonable with the exterior of the building collapsing at essentially free fall acceleration. It's basically what you would expect if the interior of the building collapsed first, and then the exterior buckled over several floors.
And we know you don't think the investigation was good enough. Unfortunately it seems nobody with any real experience in the matter agrees with you. NIST explained why they did what they did:
And it has been discussed several times here. I have asked you to not repeatedly bring up the same topic again and again. So please do not do so.
You asked me not to bring the subject up and then banned me for a month minutes later: before I'd even realised you'd sent me a message. Of course there are plenty of people who have issues with the NIST WTC 7 report and it most certainly does not follow the principles of the scientific method.
You appear to think mere plausibility is all that's required, and plausibility is far from universally agreed. However, I am happy to drop the subject if you could link me to what you consider the best explanation for freefall here on your site.
I've had a little search but all I can find is the usual bluster.
The exterior columns buckled, so offered a relatively small resistance for a period of time. That's it. Now if you can debunk this, then just start a thread with your debunking.
Delighted. Big Brother will get back to you presently.
The thing is, I addressed that NIST NFPA passage months ago. If it wasn't constantly pasted in as if it still offers answers then maybe my responses to it would appear less repetitive.
Sounds like Mick had debunked your 'theory' to me. Repeating the same thing won't change the FACTS. The truth and the facts and the science is not on your side.
You ask why NIST did not follow NFPA 921. So I give you NIST's answer. You disagree with the reasoning they use, but it's still the reasons why they did what they did.
Anyway, if you have something to add, take it up in your thread. It's off topic here.
And I thought you were going to start a thread explaining why free-fall was impossible in WTC7?
In point of fact I have already pointed out the myriad flaws of reasoning in NIST's justification for not following NFPA 921 months ago (unfortunately somewhat edited by a moderator recently).
If "debunkers" didn't keep copy-and-pasting the same passage in response to my points as if those criticisms hadn't been made, my responses wouldn't become so repetitive. But then I suppose Mick wouldn't have an excuse to ban me with virtually no warning at all.
And you may believe you have the "FACTS" on your side, Cairenn, but this is not the case. You should start by acknowledging the best you have, if you believe in NIST, is a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis derived from a investigation that examined precisely zero physical evidence, postulates a great deal that is supposed to have happened for which there is not even any visual evidence, and depends considerably for its justification on a computer "simulation" that does not simulate the video evidence and cannot be verified.
A hypothesis is not "FACTS".
To prove this point, let me ask you: can you give one actual reason why NIST should not have followed the NFPA 921 code in the case of WTC 7 that stands any rational scrutiny at all? All NIST says is it requires "broader accommodations". How is this a justification for not applying the NFPA 921 code in respect of the scientific method as its application is defined in the code (which NIST did not do)? It is actually saying nothing at all.
These are some of the things NFPA 921 codifies in respect of fire investigations and the scientific method that I mentioned before (again, ignored by "debunkers").
Do you think Chief Nigro would have expected the NFPA 921 code to be applied in this case? I do. What actual substance is there to NIST's excuse for not doing so?
ps. I picked up this super-annoying use of italics from Jazzy. I may start using bold soon too.
Edit: Oh look, I did.
Believe it or not, I have a life, family, job, and some very serious concerns to address at the moment. Amusing myself with the denizens of this forum is a kind of distraction from them for me, but I can't have fun 24/7. Don't worry, I'll start the thread when I've had time to analyse the text from NIST you copied-and-pasted point by point (as I said, I have analysed much of it already and that was just ignored).
I also need to read through some of what's been said before, so all in all it may be a little while.
Big Brother will get back to you, Mick.
Of course, you locked that thread weeks ago.
Jomper, you know there's not going to be another investigation of WTC7. Certainly not one with more physical evidence from WTC7 examined. So what is your goal here? You've already stated your point literally hundreds of times, and ignored the answers given an equal number of times.
I had forgotten I'd locked that thread. But if you have something new and specific then you can start a new thread. Please follow the posting guidelines, which have been revised slightly since you were last here:
Your own excerpt would argue with you.
Seems as if the safety features are specifically designed for the event of all cables being cut, as was stated in the link I posted.
Can you explain how a plane impact on the uppermost floors of the buildings would plausibly disable every braking system and render the shock-absorber so entirely ineffective as to not only kill the occupants, but also result in large and fiery explosions which decimated the lobbies/basement levels?
I'm not disregarding what this guy has to say, or calling him a liar. But what he has to say isn't nearly so 'smoking-gun' as you imply. He describes hearing a sound, likely elevators on a fast descent, he describes an explosion afterward that wrecked the lobby. That's his personal experience, and I believe it. None the less, you can't present his explanation of that explosion being the result of the elevators explosively hitting the bottom floor as some sort of professional assessment he gained at the time through his experience as an elevator technician. He makes it pretty clear he didn't know what he was hearing or why the lobby blew up. He states he was told what had happened later. The explanation he presents is one he was given and accepts, not the independent conclusion of an expert on the scene or something.
So jet-fuel, acting as the powder in a musket, blasted the elevators from top to bottom, chasing them with a fiery wall of pressure down 90 floors?
Clearly though a heavy duty shock absorber (which is only a few feet high) is not going to do anything for a fall over anything over a few tens of feet. Certainly not for a fall from the 106th floor. A car travelling at 100 mph cannot safely stop in six feet.
And you seem to be conflating two things - the fireball type explosion, and the impact of the elevator falling. Think about them as two different events.
Is there any experiment or any real evidence that there would be enough oxygen or fuel left after the initial explosion to have this suppose fireball descend 106 floors and still have the ability to decimate the lobby? It sounds ridiculous just saying it...if we are basin everything on real evidence show some that this is even possible with some real backing in another realistic situation
When a fire in closed area runs out of oxygen, it may go out, but as soon as there is available oxygen, it will restart. In fact that is used in the ceramic technique called raku.
Weren't the elevators falling a proven fact?
I'd settle for the release of the complete datafiles of the NIST "simulation" at this point. I don't think there's a single "debunker" on this site who can defend the "public safety" argument for classifying that information and maintain a veneer of independent thought or credibility. I know Jazzy has, but I think gerrycan showed him just how mistaken his dogmatic defences of the NIST report have been.
Ah, so you accept that there is physical evidence from WTC7 that NIST could have examined? Perhaps you would argue that physical evidence is not relevant to a forensic investigation for some reason? Would you accept that physical evidence is critical in forensic investigations in general, or can you point to another forensic investigation that came to credible conclusions without examining any physical evidence at all?
I'm fascinated by disingenuous "debunkers". For example, I recently asked: what is the actual substance of NIST's excuse for not following the NFPA921 code in the case of WTC7? NFPA921 makes it clear what following the scientific method in fire investigation actually means and quite obviously it means testing for accelerants in the event of high order damage. NIST's stated "reasoning" for not doing so is meaningless, wouldn't you agree?
I haven't ignored the answers: I've pointed out how hollow they are. That's quite different. NIST may say it has followed the scientific method in investigating WTC7 but this does not in fact make it so. If I point this out, what I get is endless copy-and-pastes of NIST's claim to have followed the scientific method. And this from people who claim to have reason on their side. As I say, it's fascinating.
Why don't you ask the NIST that? None of us were a part of them. The EXPERTS didn't and all the backseat drivers think that they know more. Hmm, experts or non experts, who should I believe?
It depends if you're satisfied presenting an argument from authority with control-V or if you're prepared to demonstrate you can think for yourself.
Well don't bother calling the electrician, mechanic or plumber, cuz you can 'think for yourself'.
That's an absurd metaphor: NIST's "reasoning" for abandoning the NFPA921 code in the case of WTC7 is rendered in plain (if meaningless) English, and plain expression rather than shaky metaphor is the medium of rational discussion.
However, if your property suffered a massive and mysterious electrical, mechanical or plumbing failure and the electrician, mechanic or plumber you called ignored the standard and rationally-expressed manual for identifying the cause of the disaster and couldn't tell you why, would you aggressively defend their methods to your neighbour if they said it was obvious they'd done a very dodgy repair job? ;-)
Absurd huh? Yokay. I must have been insane to even think it had a parallel.
Separate names with a comma.