WTC 7 (Building 7)

[George B]

I think the planes flying into the building and then the fire seemed like such an obvious cause that it seemed ludicrous to check for something like "technology we are unaware of" that somehow survived the impact, then the fires, and then destroyed the building in such a way that most engineers though it was the fires.

Well Mick that is where we will probably always split company . . . and I am sure I will most likely never be satisfied because the evidence of potential skulduggery is, I fear, long gone and the memory of the events will eventually fade into history . . . so except for a few crackpots like myself it is basically over . . .

 

[F4Jock]

Not testing for something because you don't think you are going to find something is the pinnacle of non-science
yet this is exactly what NIST did.

OR - Why, when you hear hoofbeats, do you bother to look for Zebras when you've actually SEEN horses? Uncontrolled fires fueled by the building contents burned for seven hours on at LEAST eight to thirteen floors in the area of the initial collapse (Penthouse supports.) AND the sprinkler systems were inop. You conveniently choose to ignore ALL evidence and science that does not support your conclusion, such as no noise of detonation, noise that can be heard on EVERY recording of controlled demolition I, and others, have seen.

www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm for more information actually based on science!

I'm sixty-six years old. I have more scientific education and first hand experience in firefighting, engineering, EMS and flying than you. I've tried to be patient and cite examples to at least spark some semblance of logic in you to no avail. At this juncture I haven't the time to waste trying to educate a person who bases their entire argument on "feelings" and what didn't take place while refusing to acknowledge facts. Your position is unsupportable but if you have nothing better to do than cling to it be my guest. I'm out of this thread. I'll not provide any further excuses for you to showcase ignorance.

 

[George B]

I think the planes flying into the building and then the fire seemed like such an obvious cause that it seemed ludicrous to check for something like "technology we are unaware of" that somehow survived the impact, then the fires, and then destroyed the building in such a way that most engineers though it was the fires.

Someday would you agree the data surrounding the computer simulations should (and will) be released?? . . . If it never is released . . . I think that piece (sequestering) of evidence is very significant . . . the trouble is . . . I bet I and many others will probably be long gone before it happens, if ever . . .

 

[hiper]

I'm sixty-six years old. I have more scientific education and first hand experience in firefighting, engineering, EMS and flying than you. I've tried to be patient and cite examples to at least spark some semblance of logic in you to no avail. At this juncture I haven't the time to waste trying to educate a person who bases their entire argument on "feelings" and what didn't take place while refusing to acknowledge facts. Your position is unsupportable but if you have nothing better to do than cling to it be my guest. I'm out of this thread. I'll not provide any further excuses for you to showcase ignorance.

Millions upon millions of people have in the 20th century died at the hands of their own governments.
Yet according to you I am committing blasphemy and heresy with asking some basic questions about the official WTC 7 explanation
by the holy US government.

"governments lie to go war" heresy!
"government instigated false flag events" blasphemy!

the Reichstag fire, the fake invasion at Gleiwitz, operation Northwoods, the gulf of Tonkin incident, Bush's WMD BS....

You may think you are defending the Virgin Mary but that is not the case.

 

[Cairenn]

We are NOT talking about THOSE. We are talking about a building burning for hours, with NO sprinkler system.

There is NO evidence of explosions in the building itself. NONE.

There is NO explanation of how any explosive could have survived the hours of fire, or how they could have been planted in the first place.

Imploding a building is NOT just setting some explosives, it also includes cutting and weakening support columns. No evidence that this was done.

and lastly, imploded buildings DO NOT drape one side across the debris.

Demanding tests for explosives, is like demanding DNA test for zebras on horse droppings after the Ft Worth Stock Show parade. Where folks have seen horses and the closest zebra is miles away in the zoo.

 

[Jazzy]

You may think you are defending the Virgin Mary but that is not the case.

The case is that you're making all sorts of accusations WITHOUT answering questions. Each time you do that you dig yourself deeper into the mire. Even politeness comes into this. YOU ARE NOT BEING POLITE.

NOBODY is interested in people who, like you, do not deal.

Answer our questions. Mine for a start:

1) Was the collapse simultaneous? Yes or no?

2) How was anyone to know that WTC 1 was going to strike WTC 7?

3) How did explosives withstand seven hours of un-fought and free-ranging fire? < ? > How would they have known where to put the explosives when they didn't know where WTC 7 was to be struck?

 

[jomper]

NIST's report is a small masterpiece of modern forensic engineering analysis.

It was a "forensic analysis" that analysed not a single piece of steel from the building. Not one bit of steel.

There actually was a single piece of steel from WTC 7 for NIST to analyse, O'Brien -- why don't you tell us what happened to it?

You call a forensic analysis that didn't analyse a single piece of steel from the building

a small masterpiece

?

Lol.

You don't get to drop that bit of truth down the memory hole, O'Brien.

Not this time.

 

[hiper]

The case is that you're making all sorts of accusations WITHOUT answering questions. Each time you do that you dig yourself deeper into the mire. Even politeness comes into this. YOU ARE NOT BEING POLITE.

NOBODY is interested in people who, like you, do not deal.

Answer our questions. Mine for a start:

1) Was the collapse simultaneous? Yes or no?

2) How was anyone to know that WTC 1 was going to strike WTC 7?

3) How did explosives withstand seven hours of un-fought and free-ranging fire? < ? > How would they have known where to put the explosives when they didn't know where WTC 7 was to be struck?

I have answered your questions before but I will do so again...

1) Of course it was simultaneous... that's the one striking fact of this whole collapse.

2) It did not strike the WTC 7. WTC 1 collapsed in on itself.

3) Fires were very local and explosives would be on bottom floors.

Now to settle this once and for all...

Why did NIST evade the testing of the WTC 7 dust for explosive residue?

You can evade my question with horses and zebra talk all you want but that only shows you guys also know there can only be 1 reason for this.
Independent researchers have found explosive residue in the dust.
So if NIST would investigate the same dust it would also find explosive residue.

There is no other explanation.

Why doesn't the government release a good video showing a boeing crashing into the pentagon?
Because it doesn't have a video on which a boeing can be seen because the pentagon was not hit by a boeing.

There is no other explanation.

This is why the air of superiority you guys as proponents of the official explanation have is misplaced

 

[Landru]

I have answered your questions before but I will do so again...

1) Of course it was simultaneous... that's the one striking fact of this whole collapse.

2) It did not strike the WTC 7. WTC 1 collapsed in on itself.

3) Fires were very local and explosives would be on bottom floors.

1) Any proof?
2) NIST says differently http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
3) Again, NIST says differently.

 

[SR1419]

I have answered your questions before but I will do so again...

1) Of course it was simultaneous... that's the one striking fact of this whole collapse.

2) It did not strike the WTC 7. WTC 1 collapsed in on itself.

3) Fires were very local and explosives would be on bottom floors.

1. Not true- the penthouse fell several seconds before the facade started to move

2. Not true- it collapsed down but literally tons of material was ejected outward damaging over 40 other buildings of which WTC 7 was one.

3. Not true- there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

How do fires that are not fought for 8 hours remain "very local".

If the explosives were on the bottom floors- why the the penthouse fall first?

 

[Mick West]

1) Of course it was simultaneous... that's the one striking fact of this whole collapse.

I take it you've not read chapter 5.7 of NCSTAR 1-9? (Page 305-332 in the pdf, numbered 261-288)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

 

[Jazzy]

Of course it was simultaneous... that's the one striking fact of this whole collapse.

Then your perception is faulty. Even in the limited video available you can SEE the internals collapsing first. The penthouse fell before the fascia BECAUSE it was standing on columns which were collapsing. It is plainly visible to everyone else but you. You haves simply duped yourself if you believe that a building that started collapsing from its far side towards you six seconds previously magically dropped at free fall because its basement was exploded. Silently.

It did not strike the WTC 7. WTC 1 collapsed in on itself.

Fires were very local and explosives would be on bottom floors.

Silent explosives?

Now to settle this once and for all.

Yes, let's.



http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Why did NIST evade the testing of the WTC 7 dust for explosive residue?

For the same reason they didn't test it for sea urchins, Kellogg's Cornflakes, or pixie dust: there were no prior indications of such things at the time of collapse.

there can only be 1 reason for this

And it's someone who cannot prove his obsession.

This is why the air of superiority you guys as proponents of the official explanation have is misplaced

That's what it looks like when you carry an obsession such as yours. Everything's relative..

 

[hiper]

1) Any proof?

1. Not true- the penthouse fell several seconds before the facade started to move

I take it you've not read chapter 5.7 of NCSTAR 1-9?

NIST admits free fall is in play.

Free fall implies sudden total structural failure.
This is very hard to reconcile with the collapse by fire preset.

Please have a look at these video's.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw


In the back of my mind I have always left a space for the
possibility I could be wrong about all this.
Have you guys done the same?

 

[Mick West]

NIST admits free fall is in play.

Free fall implies sudden total structural failure.
This is very hard to reconcile with the collapse by fire preset.

Please have a look at these video's.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw


In the back of my mind I have always left a space for the
possibility I could be wrong about all this.
Have you guys done the same?

Of course. Any good scientist does. One should always remember that we work with the theory that best fits the facts. If the facts change, the theory might change.

But what's with all the NIST YouTube videos? I'd just linked you to the report that discusses that in great depth.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

Have you read it?

Have you even skimmed through it?

 

[Jazzy]

NIST admits free fall is in play.

So it drafted something different in the draft report. That is what draft reports are for.

Free fall implies sudden total structural failure.

It implies nothing of the sort.

This is very hard to reconcile with the collapse by fire preset.

Hey, there was a seven-hour unfought fire. The building fell down. That's some "preset"! LOL.

Please have a look at these video's.

These video's what? The plural of video is videos.

What nonsense. The buildings buckled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

In the back of my mind I have always left a space for the possibility I could be wrong about all this. Have you guys done the same?

We have all probably collapsed a drinking straw by standing it on end and pushing down on it.

We noticed that once the straw begins to move it pushes back with less force. In fact it rapidly gives up and offers virtually zero resistance.

Which is exactly what the fascia of WTC 7 did. It buckled.

"Virtually zero resistance" would result in "within a few percent of G" as a downward acceleration, wouldn't it?

So that leads you nowhere doesn't it?

It's time you stopped pretending you're looking at an instantaneous (yet silent!) event which has nothing to do with a seven hour fire and buckling instability.

 

[hiper]

Have you read it?

Have you even skimmed through it?

I had not read it but I skimmed through the chapter you pointed to.


You put absolute faith in an institution (NIST) that :

A) did not follow national standards for fire and explosive investigation described in the "NFPA 921 Guide for fire and explosive investigations 2001 edition"
in which it calls for testing for accelerants and explosive residue when high order damage is involved.

given that

--> there are numerous witnesses that heard explosions and that there is video evidence of it
--> the WTC 1993 bombing obviously used explosives
--> the entire building collapsed

NIST not testing for explosive residue raises a red flag.

B) Refuses to release the numbers/measurements/assumptions/system tweaks it used in corroboration with the simulation software to come up with the 3D animation.
People have to take their findings on good faith.

NIST in their final report did not release these parameters so it is reasonable to conclude it is their intention never to release them.
This raises another red flag.

How can one remain faithful in such an institution..

 

[Cairenn]

What video evidence of an explosion? In fact in an implosion there are MULTIPLE explosions.

Just because explosives were used in 1993 doesn't imply they were used here. In FACT, they didn't work. They FAILED. An explosion around a single non weakened column didn't do much.

Have you read much on what it takes to implode a building?

 

[Mick West]

I had not read it but I skimmed through the chapter you pointed to.

You should skim though the rest of it. Just keep your finger on the next page key, to get a sense of what's in there.

You put absolute faith in an institution (NIST) that :

I put absolute faith in nothing and nobody. But perhaps you could point to something in the report that is demonstrably wrong?

 

[hiper]

What video evidence of an explosion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl-Pxd1-04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyIbHN3fxkY

But perhaps you could point to something in the report that is demonstrably wrong?

Yes I can point you to 2

The absence of the chapter : " trace chemical analysis of the WTC 7 dust for accelerant or explosive residue"
&
The absence of the chapter : " index of parameters for WTC 7 3d collapse model"

 

[Mick West]

The absence of the chapter : " trace chemical analysis of the WTC 7 dust for accelerant or explosive residue"
&
The absence of the chapter : " index of parameters for WTC 7 3d collapse model"

Yes, we know you think it's incomplete. But is there anything actually WRONG in it? Do you agree with everything it says?

 

[jomper]

Yes, we know you think it's incomplete. But is there anything actually WRONG in it? Do you agree with everything it says?

Lying by omission is wrong.

 

[Mick West]

Lying by omission is wrong.

But you don't know if they are lying by omission.

Are there any ACTUAL CLAIMS OF EVIDENCE in the report that are incorrect?

Or do you agree with the entire thing?

 

[hiper]

Yes, we know you think it's incomplete. But is there anything actually WRONG in it? Do you agree with everything it says?

Those 2 chapters (testing for explosive residue/3D modeling parameters) could never have be added to the report
because they would have invalidated the whole thing.

The premise of an open and unbiased investigation should be to investigate every possible avenue yes?
What does this mean for building collapses in the light of terrorist incidents?

testing dust samples for accelerant/explosive/thermite/thermate residue so you can rule this out before you go to the next avenue of investigation.

This is called for in the NFPA 921 Guidelines for fire and explosive investigations!!!

NIST skipped this first step completely. And you are asking me if there is actually something wrong with the report!

Of course I don't agree with everything that came after they skipped that first step.

 

[jomper]

But you don't know if they are lying by omission.

Where is the steel featured in FEMA 403, Appendix C -- which was known to come from WTC 7 -- in the NIST report?
Where is any physical steel from the building tested in the NIST report?

 

[Mick West]

Yes, I know you think it was not good enough, and di not go far enough, but other than their omissions, did they actually get anything wrong?

I mean, it's quite a large report (talking about NCSTAR 1-9, but that's not even all of it). Are you just saying that the report is entirely factual, but omits certain areas of investigation that think should be in there?

 

[George B]

Yes, I know you think it was not good enough, and di not go far enough, but other than their omissions, did they actually get anything wrong?

I mean, it's quite a large report (talking about NCSTAR 1-9, but that's not even all of it). Are you just saying that the report is entirely factual, but omits certain areas of investigation that think should be in there?

Seems to us . . . the few . . . that an investigation of this magnitude which took YEARS to complete should be complete . . ..

 

[Mick West]

Seems to us . . . the few . . . that an investigation of this magnitude which took YEARS to complete should be complete . . ..

But you know there will always be people who are never satisfied, no matter what is done. There's a point of diminishing returns. The people running the investigation saw no reason to look for explosives beyond satisfying the conspiracy theorists. And if they did look and found nothing, then the conspiracy theorists would simply say they were compromised, and demand and "independent" investigation. Then if that happened, and found nothing, they would demand access to the secret CIA files.

It never ends. You need to make a good case based on available evidence for additional investigation. It seems so stunningly obvious to most people that planes flew into the building, they caught fire, they collapsed. There was nothing to indicate otherwise.

 

[jomper]

Yes, I know you think it was not good enough, and di not go far enough, but other than their omissions, did they actually get anything wrong?

Are we to understand from this that you think it is perfectly fine that not even a single piece of physical steel from the building was tested in the investigation, given that steel from the building was available?

 

[Mick West]

Are we to understand from this that you think it is perfectly fine that not even a single piece of physical steel from the building was tested in the investigation, given that steel from the building was available?

Well, that's the same as testing for explosives, isn't it? You need a reason to test the steel in the first place.

 

[hiper]

Yes, I know you think it was not good enough, and di not go far enough, but other than their omissions, did they actually get anything wrong?

I mean, it's quite a large report (talking about NCSTAR 1-9, but that's not even all of it). Are you just saying that the report is entirely factual, but omits certain areas of investigation that think should be in there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4 please go to 01h:35m:30s

These persons found unreacted thermitic material in the WTC dust.

If NIST had tested the dust they would have found the same unreacted material and NCSTAR 1-9 ; which is basically entirely woven around the "collapse by fire" avenue ; would never have come to be.
Because they would have known the collapse was due to involvement of the discovered chemical agent.

It was vital for the NIST investigation that the dust would not be tested and so it was NIST's primary job to steer clear of that avenue of investigation.

 

[George B]

But you know there will always be people who are never satisfied, no matter what is done. There's a point of diminishing returns. The people running the investigation saw no reason to look for explosives beyond satisfying the conspiracy theorists. And if they did look and found nothing, then the conspiracy theorists would simply say they were compromised, and demand and "independent" investigation. Then if that happened, and found nothing, they would demand access to the secret CIA files.

It never ends. You need to make a good case based on available evidence for additional investigation. It seems so stunningly obvious to most people that planes flew into the building, they caught fire, they collapsed. There was nothing to indicate otherwise.

Mick, how did they know there were no other co-conspirators . . . seems a very plausible and logical question to ask if there were others plotting to help the demolition of the towers . . . not relying only on the aircraft. . . .It's not like someone had tried to blow them up before. . . .LoL!!!!!

 

[Mick West]

Mick, how did they know there were no other co-conspirators . . . seems a very plausible and logical question to ask if there were others plotting to help the demolition of the towers . . . not relying only on the aircraft. . . .

No it doesn't. It seems like a question requiring some evidence to pursue. The idea that terrorists would fly planes into a building that they had already rigged to explode (with silent , indestructible, fireproof explosives) is so ridiculous that unless there's some compelling indication that it might have happened, then it's not worth even looking into.

 

[hiper]

Well, that's the same as testing for explosives, isn't it? You need a reason to test the steel in the first place.

Mick the building totally collapsed... If something like that happens there are guidelines to follow (NFPA 921)
One of the guidelines is testing for accelerant/chemical agent/explosive residue.
You find it normal they skipped this guidline?

 

[Pete Tar]

Well how much does steel vary? If the steel's composition and manufacturing stats are known, then would it be acceptable to assume certain values across the board for it without having to physically analyse it? Could have just been a short cut that the analysists didn't have a problem with as it was a safe value to assume?
Some analysis of the actual steel would seem warranted, but maybe they just didn't have to?

Edit... Nevermind, I thought you were talking about analysing the steel to determine the scenario of the building collapse, not the explosive residue thing.

 

[George B]

No it doesn't. It seems like a question requiring some evidence to pursue. The idea that terrorists would fly planes into a building that they had already rigged to explode (with silent , indestructible, fireproof explosives) is so ridiculous that unless there's some compelling indication that it might have happened, then it's not worth even looking into.

Mick. . . .there is no way they could have expected the aircraft alone to have brought down the buildings. . . if that were the objective. . . it makes plenty of sense to have explosives placed in the basement, etc. . . .are you going to deny this would NOT be a consideration? Dual coverage with explosives during terrorist acts are a commonly found occurrence . . . kill the first people. . . Kill the first responders. . . .

 

[jomper]

Well, that's the same as testing for explosives, isn't it? You need a reason to test the steel in the first place.

With respect, I don't think Orwell himself could have come up with a better example of doublethink.

 

[George B]

Well, that's the same as testing for explosives, isn't it? You need a reason to test the steel in the first place.

Well, just maybe it could save lives in the future to know as much as one can reasonably find out about this unprecedented event. . . which means due diligence. . . something I suppose NIST does not normally ascribe too . . .???

 

[Mick West]

Mick. . . .there is no way they could have expected the aircraft alone to have brought down the buildings. . . if that were the objective. . . it makes plenty of sense to have explosives placed in the basement, etc. . . .are you going to deny this would NOT be a consideration? Dual coverage with explosives during terrorist acts are a commonly found occurrence . . . kill the first people. . . Kill the first responders. . . .

Why on earth would they both flying planes into the building if they could just blow it up?

And explosive in the basement would not produce anything like the collapse seen on WTC1&2

 

[Mick West]

With respect, I don't think Orwell himself could have come up with a better example of doublethink.

Not really. There is a very good explanation of why the building fell which fits the facts perfectly. The explosives theory is already disprove by the lack of loud bangs and the lack of visual evidence of explosive devices.

 

[George B]

Why on earth would they both flying planes into the building if they could just blow it up?

And explosive in the basement would not produce anything like the collapse seen on WTC1&2

The explosives are to produce more collateral damage and loss of life especially for the first responders . . . as I stated above a common terrorist technique . . .