NIST did not seem to have those two pieces of steel.
What tests would you expect? I can't try to explain an omission if I don't know what it is.
Last edited:
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
NIST did not seem to have those two pieces of steel.
What tests would you expect? I can't try to explain an omission if I don't know what it is.
hiper
Active Member
You would not have to do any explaining if the official explanation was solid.
I think it's pretty solid now. But I fear no matter what, some people would not be satisfied.
F4Jock
Active Member
No matter how obvious the situation there are always people who don't believe. I give you the Flat Earth Society. The majority believe the official explanation of the world being round is solid but they insist it isn't. According to some and despite the official explanation, Elvis is still alive. The world s 6000 years old. Planet X is hiding behind the sun......
Need more examples?
Changing ingrained beliefs has very little to do with the logic of ANY conflicting explanation presented as long as people are predisposed to not believe that explanation for whatever their reason may be. Those reasons include, but are not limited to, religion and distrust of whichever entity is offering the explanation.
In the end no matter what, in my opinion the whole thing boils down to what one is willing to accept based on their system of beliefs. Presenting facts and explanations is secondary to whatever that system dictates to the believer because everything is tainted by that system.
Chuck
Active Member
Mick, I think there's such a pervading distrust of government, that many embrace anything contrary to what the government purports. Alex Jones has been proved wrong time and again, yet his following continues to increase. Why? Because he's very adept at exploiting the anti-establishment sentiment. If people utilized the same tools and initiated the same effort to debunk Jones' conspiratorial theories as they do to the shoot holes in the party line, I think many would wake up. They've drastically lowered their level of scrutiny because they WANT to believe Jones and company. It fits their paradigm. And we all know that when hardened conclusions are imposed on the evidence, truth will be almost impossible to locate.
hiper
Active Member
The total Iraq war casualties range in the 100 000's.
The US leaders before the war knew that would be the probable outcome casualty wise.
I know Saddam and his regime were beasts and it's good they are gone but try to remember that figure
when you defend the Bush administration from any 9/11 involvement.
The US leaders before the war knew that would be the probable outcome casualty wise.
I know Saddam and his regime were beasts and it's good they are gone but try to remember that figure
when you defend the Bush administration from any 9/11 involvement.
Nobody is trying to defend anyone, least of all defend Bush. I'm seeking the truth.
The Bush administration obviously used 9/11. That does not mean they caused it. Lots of people used it.
F4Jock
Active Member
A) I'm not defending them at all. Becoming involved in Iraq was stupid. Of course you never actually asked me.....
B) Afganstan was the result of 9/11, not Iraq, and you'll remember after the initial Afghan war was over and the Taliban routed it became largely forgotten until President Obama decided it was the REAL war during the 2007 campaign.
C) We didn't go into Iraq until 2003 and that was supposedly because of WMDs.
Therefore, based on the facts, your linkage statement is generally incorrect.
F4Jock
Active Member
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste!" Rahm Emanuel COS to Barack Obama. Should we defend him too perhaps? Or not?
Does this show that the present administration has,in this case, essentially the same philosophy as the one it replaced?
But it would not satisfy everyone, so what's the point?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It would remove many doubts . . . prove to many doubters that the government cares and is tarnsparent . . . have you looked at their approval ratings lately . . . I guess they would rather hire a PR firm for a couple billion . . .
It would remove many doubts . . . prove to many doubters that the government cares and is tarnsparent . . . have you looked at their approval ratings lately . . . I guess they would rather hire a PR firm for a couple billion . . .
It would also make millions of people very angry that they would waste $3 billion on something where the science is essentially settled.
F4Jock
Active Member
Correct!
Because it is not. They withstood the plane strikes. The fire is what brought them down after being weakened by the plane strikes.
F4Jock
Active Member
It would remove many doubts . . . prove to many doubters that the government cares and is tarnsparent . . . have you looked at their approval ratings lately . . . I guess they would rather hire a PR firm for a couple billion . . .
Nope. Given the CT mindset all it would do is engender more anti-government conspiracy theories about faked tests. Face it and accept it, it's gone as far as it's gonna go. It's over.
However......It has been suggested that myth busters take a whack at this. Of course no one who really believes has bothered to get off their tails and actually contact them about it, so just as a favor to all of the armchair believers out there, I will. I'll keep you informed.
It's not like fully loaded planes slamming into them both at full speed on the same day was something that was just waiting to happen at the drop of a hat. A single plane hitting by accident would be extraordinarily unlikely.
Yes, they were vulnerable to those specific events. Yes, there are design changes that could have made them safer. But it's not like they were these fragile things just waiting to collapse.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I know . . . I made the suggestion . . . It would be best coming from a pilot . . . go for it . . .
The limited metallurgical examination was not completely sure the metal was from WTC-7
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
NIST apparently had higher standards.External Quote:
Last edited by a moderator:
F4Jock
Active Member
They didn't disintegrate!
"
They collapsed in an
uncontrolled[emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually "laying out" in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site."
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yeah . . . Like they don't waste billions every day on worse . . .
F4Jock
Active Member
OK but before I do I'd like some input from any interested parties at to what criteria the yet should have such that if they do undertake the test there won't be any protestations of "But they didn't......"
You have 24 hours people.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) for safety reasons 1,000 feet above ground is probably too low . . . but need it credible, say 2,000 to 3,000 feet . . .?
2) light beams or laser columns with equipment capable of detecting a hit, speed and altitude . . . spaced at same dimensions as the towers . . .
3) need to hit three of four passes . . . at 500 plus mph . . .
4) pilot needs adequate skill not to kill themselves and others . . . maybe two sets of four approaches . . . One set with experienced pilot and on set with right seat . . . with 767 or 757 . . .
5) Total of eight pilots (8) . . . only one try per pilot . . . no more . . .
J
jomper
Guest
I posted a link to confirmed WTC 7 steel which you've quoted back (at 671) but evidently didn't bother to click on.
F4Jock
Active Member
Will you accept a simulator?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If that is all I can get . . . it is at least a start . . . but I would prefer of course The Real McCoy . . .
I guess if it is good enough for NIST . . . It must be as good as reality!!!!
I clicked on a link in #671 which took me back to #489.
I clicked on the link you provided and got the link I posted with the introduction I quoted.External Quote:
I'm not sure what the dispute is here?
There are thre pieces of steel that FEMA said were from WTC7.
The "Eroded A36 wide-flange beam" is only THOUGHT to be from WTC7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
The other two were photographed at the dump site, but seem to have been disposed of. They did not look like they had similar effects though.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf
Last edited:
F4Jock
Active Member
Remember: Last I looked a 767 costs about 3k per hour to operate wet and fifteen or so thousand to rent for a few hours. The big problem is insurance. My guess is that no insurance company is gonna let their Baby Boeing scream in on the deck over the desert at 500 knots with a rookie at the stick to prove someone's pet CT.
Best you're gonna get is a sim.......
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well maybe we can do simulators and suggest a trial with an experienced pilot in a gulf stream and a smaller target . . . or old 707 . . . etc . . .
F4Jock
Active Member
Insurance companies will be insurance companies no matter what they're insuring but we'll see,
J
jomper
Guest
FEMA investigation said:
but...
Mick said:
Mick said:
Too bad about that detailed study then, eh Mick?
Ah well, it's not important really.
I think they still have the bit of steel, it's just not entirely clear which building it came from.
Regardless, they don't need the steel for a detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon. I don't know if any more study has been done. I think most people assumed that damage came from the month long fires that burned on the site after collapse.
J
jomper
Guest
That's right -- who cares what FEMA said about the steel? I mean, they said it needed further study, but I think we can safely ignore that don't you?
Yes, that's what I said earlier.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignore it? No. But they said "A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed"
That's not quite the same as saying the steel itself needed further study.
Have you read this?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
J
jomper
Guest
Ah -- well when you put it like that, I see exactly what you mean Mick -- no reason to analyse the WTC 7 steel at all.
Ha ha. Silly old FEMA and their recommendations about the weird steel that NIST lost.
- Status
Similar threads
