WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Mick West]

Do you honestly think the science and demolition experts involved in the inquiry, are incompetent enough to not realise that thermite can effectively cut through and eat away huge chunks of steel? Please answer this question Mick... it really is the elephant in the room.

It is? I've never said that thermite can't cut through steel, it very clearly can, and NIST even calculated how much would be needed

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

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

Content from External Source

The thing is, there's no evidence that it was used. And the initiation of collapse on the fire floors in WTC 1 & 2 is pretty conclusive evidence that it was NOT used.

It also seems fairly unlikely that the technique in the video would scale to 4" thick steel.

 

[Oxymoron]

This is going to go nowhere now. First off, this is a strawman position about the government, you cannot paint all of us with that broad brush.

I did not... I said "elements of government"

We now need to address and demonstrate how Oxy has a monological belief system because he is accusing everybody of having one themselves

,

I am only reciprocating a new trend to tag conspiracy theorists... the latest in a long line of epithets designed to 'loonify' us. Don't like it when it gets turned back on you? Then don't do it in the first place.

meanwhile leaving the assumption that he is thinking without tossing out key information. all the while he is tossing out the NIST report as conpsiracy and bunk, then concocting his own evidence from youtube.

I have concocted nothing... I merely cite evidence from clever and dedicated people who with very limited resources have shown the official scientists to be either totaly incompetent or liars... You choose which!

Over time, the view of the world as a place ruled by conspiracies can lead to conspiracy becoming the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system (Clarke, 2002; Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010, 2011).

Content from External Source

If TPTB do not like conspiracy theories, (people thinking for themselves and saying "this does not add up"), then they should stop spraying BS and calling it eau de cologne and expecting people to wear it without complaint.

 

[joelb79]

I did not... I said "elements of government"

Statement still applies; regardless of how you question my wording.

I am only reciprocating a new trend to tag conspiracy theorists... the latest in a long line of epithets designed to 'loonify' us. Don't like it when it gets turned back on you? Then don't do it in the first place.

First off, believing a conspiracy theory does not make one a loonie. But one with a monological world-view is easy to detect on these forums. With complete disregard for how the term is being used and what it means, you mis-apply it to people who do not toss out strong evidence and apply it to people who toss out weak and debunked evidence (or non-evidence, whichever it is we are talking about) in an attempt to make us feel bad. This is the same as pee-wee herman arguing "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I."

If TPTB do not like conspiracy theories, (people thinking for themselves and saying "this does not add up"), then they should stop spraying BS and calling it eau de cologne and expecting people to wear it without complaint.

So Social Psychological and Personality Science is now the voice of who? Who are TPTB again? This again is an argument designed to go nowhere and not even remotely close to the topic of WTC7 so lets get back to that shall we?

 

[Oxymoron]

It is? I've never said that thermite can't cut through steel, it very clearly can, and NIST even calculated how much would be needed

The quote below is saying it could not be used because it i) there would need be lots of it and ii) it could not have been carried into the building. Statement i) is clearly false as evidenced by the video. Statement ii) is severely compromised by evidence of the security being compromised by a shutdown accompanied by unknown work crews having unfettered access at least on the weekend before the attacks and possibly much longer.

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

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Content from External Source

Here is a classic debunk of the thermite theory which, (as we know from the video experiments), is a complete load of old tosh
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

Content from External Source

The thing is, there's no evidence that it was used.

As it was not looked for officially, but independent and well respected scientists have found it and attempts to shut them up were made.

And the initiation of collapse on the fire floors in WTC 1 & 2 is pretty conclusive evidence that it was NOT used.

I don't see anything conclusive about it, bribery and threats and political science can be made to show whatever you like as can manipulating statistics. It is about time the governments started telling the truth and earning the trust they bemoan not having.

It also seems fairly unlikely that the technique in the video would scale to 4" thick steel.

Based on what scientific analysis?

Even the commission co chair urges people to keep asking questions:

But the advice here is... 'Move on... nothing to see'.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html

9/11 Commissioners admit that they never got to the bottom of 9/11. For example:

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11

Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don’t have to get bogged down in reading this section – you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):

• The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

Content from External Source

And according to a poll, only 16% of Americans, (and I suggest far fewer of world citizens), think the Government is telling the truth about 9/11... So that puts the debunkers on this forum in a very small minority.

According to a scientific poll by New York Times & CBS News, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11, while 81% think it is hiding something or mostly lying. CNN poll shows that 89% believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

 

[SR1419]

That argument is only valid if you accept NIST's assertion that the 3 unprecedented collapses which occurred within hours of each other, needed no other catalyst than minor fires to initiate the collapses, (and I do mean minor in relative terms to historical events where whole buildings have been engulfed).

This is bunk and faulty logic.

The fires were not "minor" by any stretch of the imagination. The planes' impacts spreading burning jet fuel immediately across multiple 40,000 sq. ft floors and indeed sent fireballs of jet fuel throughout the buildings all the way down to the basement.

WTC7 had confirmed fires on 16 of 47 floors that burned for over 7hours. Hardly "minor".

Moreover, the scale of fires do not indicate the intensity of the fire in specific locations. It was the heat of the fire not the size that weakened steel.

 

[Mick West]

Based on what scientific analysis?

Based on the lack of demonstrations.

And according to a poll, only 16% of Americans, (and I suggest far fewer of world citizens), think the Government is telling the truth about 9/11... So that puts the debunkers on this forum in a very small minority.

Not telling the entire truth is not the same as lying about everything.

Because there's some suspicious about who knew what, and when they knew it, it does not then follow that all those people with that suspicion then think the towers were demolished with explosives.

 

[Oxymoron]

Based on the lack of demonstrations.



Not telling the entire truth is not the same as lying about everything.

Because there's some suspicious about who knew what, and when they knew it, it does not then follow that all those people with that suspicion then think the towers were demolished with explosives.

So what do you think they lied about?

 

[Mick West]

So what do you think they lied about?

I just suspect they did not tell the entire story about intelligence assessments, both for national security reasons, and for CYA.

 

[jomper]

What about the work done by Popular Mechanics?

Was PM given the input and results files NIST is not showing anyone?

 

[Mick West]

Was PM given the input and results files NIST is not showing anyone?

You act as if nothing else matters.

 

[George B]

You act as if nothing else matters.

I have to admit this issue for me has become the the biggest fly in the ointment . . .

 

[Mick West]

I have to admit this issue for me has become the the biggest fly in the ointment . . .

I guess you are stuck then.

It's not going to change. They are not going to release the data, and even if they did, who is going to "verify" it? Just running the simulation once took several weeks of supercomputer time.

If there are people out there who have the capability to verify the data, then those same people should simply be able to generate their own data.

 

[jomper]

No, it's just a relevant question. If the model's not verifiable, it's unscientific. Simples.

 

[George B]

I guess you are stuck then.

It's not going to change. They are not going to release the data, and even if they did, who is going to "verify" it? Just running the simulation once took several weeks of supercomputer time.

If there are people out there who have the capability to verify the data, then those same people should simply be able to generate their own data.

If true. . . Why withhold it from a trusted third party?

 

[Oxymoron]

If true. . . Why withhold it from a trusted third party?

Blimey... PM.... I thought that was a government agency

 

[Oxymoron]

I just suspect they did not tell the entire story about intelligence assessments, both for national security reasons, and for CYA.

That seems some gulf between your interpretation and what the commissioners have said.

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11

Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don’t have to get bogged down in reading this section – you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):

• The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

Content from External Source

Commissioners calling it a "National scandal" and stating "The investigation is compromised" to "Recommending criminal charges for false statements",

What sort of thing do you think they would be talking about?

Surely if it was 'national security', the people would have said... "It's a matter of national security" not out and out lied and shredded tapes, papers and documents which the commission felt they should be entitled to see?

Sounds like a conspiracy?

 

[Mick West]

That seems some gulf between your interpretation and what the commissioners have said.

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11

Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don’t have to get bogged down in reading this section – you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):

• The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

Content from External Source

Commissioners calling it a "National scandal" and stating "The investigation is compromised" to "Recommending criminal charges for false statements",

What sort of thing do you think they would be talking about?

Surely if it was 'national security', the people would have said... "It's a matter of national security" not out and out lied and shredded tapes, papers and documents which the commission felt they should be entitled to see?

Sounds like a conspiracy?

Are there some examples of the false statements?

 

[George B]

That seems some gulf between your interpretation and what the commissioners have said.

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11

Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don’t have to get bogged down in reading this section – you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):

• The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

Content from External Source

Commissioners calling it a "National scandal" and stating "The investigation is compromised" to "Recommending criminal charges for false statements",

What sort of thing do you think they would be talking about?

Surely if it was 'national security', the people would have said... "It's a matter of national security" not out and out lied and shredded tapes, papers and documents which the commission felt they should be entitled to see?

Sounds like a conspiracy?

Interesting . . . I had heard references to this . . . This is the first time I have seen the quotes . . . excellent Oxy !!!! So the question is not if information was not shared or misrepresented but what is the information about??? Is anything the Commission reported including NIST reliable . . . ?

 

[George B]

If true. . . Why withhold it from a trusted third party?

Seems they might not have even shared it with the 911 Commission!!! WoW!!

Actually the situation is rather sad and disturbing . . . it is something to be serious and concerned about . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

Interesting . . . I had heard references to this . . . This is the first time I have seen the quotes . . . excellent Oxy !!!! So the question is not if information was not shared or misrepresented but what is the information about??? Is anything the Commission reported including NIST reliable . . . ?

Well I would suggest not George. Here is a 2006 interview with commissioner Hamilton and after all that digging he still thinks it was superheated jet fuel flames that melted the steel... Unbelievable

http://web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Hamilton: Well, of course, we did deal with it. The charge that dynamite, or whatever, brought down the World Trade Towers, we of course looked at very carefully - we find no evidence of that. We find all kinds of evidence that it was the airplanes that did it.

Don’t take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings. What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse. There’s a powerful lot of evidence to sustain that point of view, including the pictures of the airplanes flying into the building.

Now, with regard to Building 7, we believe that it was the aftershocks of these two huge buildings in the very near vicinity collapsing. And in the Building 7 case, we think that it was a case of flames setting off a fuel container, which started the fire in Building 7, and that was our theory on Building 7.
Now we’re not the experts on this, we talked to the engineers and the architects about this at some length, and that's the conclusion we reached.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Well I would suggest not George. Here is a 2006 interview with commissioner Hamilton and after all that digging he still thinks it was superheated jet fuel flames that melted the steel... Unbelievable

http://web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Hamilton: Well, of course, we did deal with it. The charge that dynamite, or whatever, brought down the World Trade Towers, we of course looked at very carefully - we find no evidence of that. We find all kinds of evidence that it was the airplanes that did it.

Don’t take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings. What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse. There’s a powerful lot of evidence to sustain that point of view, including the pictures of the airplanes flying into the building.

Now, with regard to Building 7, we believe that it was the aftershocks of these two huge buildings in the very near vicinity collapsing. And in the Building 7 case, we think that it was a case of flames setting off a fuel container, which started the fire in Building 7, and that was our theory on Building 7.
Now we’re not the experts on this, we talked to the engineers and the architects about this at some length, and that's the conclusion we reached.

Content from External Source

Hmmmm . . . now we have better insight into why it took so many years to finalize the report . . . the Commissioners didn't even have the story straight in 2006 . . .

 

[Jazzy]

You just have to look at the animated gif of NIST's untestable collapse model upthread to see how imperfect the explanation is.

I don't mind looking. It seems pretty perfect to me. The final part of collapse, the fold, emanates from where the initial damage occurred.



How did NIST reach its conclusions? NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

Figure 5–157 shows a closer view of the western edge of the north face of WTC 7 taken from a video clip recorded from the same location as that shown in Figure 5–152. This clip was recorded several minutes later than Figure 5–152, as is evident by the change in the shadow on the white building in the foreground. The clip was shot within a couple of minutes of the WTC 7 collapse at 5:20:52 p.m., consistent with the recollection of the videographer. At this time, flames are barely visible on the 13th floor at roughly the same location as in Figure 5–152. Heavy, dark smoke is visible rising along the east side of the building. There is also considerable smoke passing across the north face. The source of this smoke is not immediately obvious.
During the clip from which Figure 5–157 was taken, the camera zoomed in on the same area shown in Figure 5–152. Heavy smoke was visible rising from near the northwest corner. Suddenly, several pulses of jet flames several stories high were pushed out of a window near 13-54B on the 13th floor. These pulses continued for about 6 s. Figure 5–158 shows a frame captured during one of these pulses.
The amount of smoke on the north face increased dramatically at the same time as the pulses. This is the only time that this unusual behavior was observed for WTC 7. Similar behaviors observed during the fires in the WTC towers (NCSTAR-1-5A) were attributed to internal pressure pulses generated by events such as local collapses within the buildings. Since the exact time for this particular event is unknown, it is not possible to associate it with a known event within WTC 7.
Figure 5–159 shows a view of the north face of WTC 7 just seconds before it began to collapse. It is a frame from a video clip shot from the northwest at 5:20:17 p.m. ± 15 s. Comparison with Figure 5–139 indicates that the fires visible in the image were located on the 11th floor between Columns 50 and 52, showing that the fire on this floor was continuing to spread to the west just prior to the collapse of the building.

Content from External Source

The above is a fragment detailing the start of the real collapse, and not the "truther" version.

It records the initial floor cascade, prior to column 79 going unstable.

The report is lucid and rigorous. You should read it sometime.

 

[Jazzy]

needed no other catalyst than minor fires to initiate the collapses

So that's what they were.

(Are) the science and demolition experts involved in the inquiry (so) incompetent (as) to not realise that thermite can effectively cut through and eat away huge chunks of steel?

No. They addressed the facts of the matter, which were that a building which wasn't attacked was inadvertently struck, damaged, and ignited. It burnt for seven hours and fell.

To NOT address these facts is what you prefer to do.

trying to come up with an exotic explanation to explain the presence of the 'mystery steel'.

It was a first form chemistry lesson for me. How exotic is that? Iron reacts at office fire temperatures with water and sulphates. Straw man.

Which is easily explained if you admit the possibility that thermite was present.

It's the broad and easy path straight to Hell. Thermite when burnt leaves large volumes of white Al2O3, alumina, to be discovered. But none was. No alumina, no thermite.

in direct contradiction of standing protocols

I don't think so. They addressed the facts.

do it anyway to avoid suspicion/criticism

By a person who cannot spot the logic in their actions? I don't think so.

rule out explosives planted as a failsafe mechanism by terrorists?

I thought the terrorists used planes because it was easier than that way. Failsafe? That's funny.

it is absolutely criminal to treat us like 'loonies' or 'mushrooms'

So sue me.

and feed us BS upon BS.

That's your department. I understand your jealousy.

 

[jomper]

I guess you are stuck then.

It's not going to change. They are not going to release the data, and even if they did, who is going to "verify" it? Just running the simulation once took several weeks of supercomputer time.

If there are people out there who have the capability to verify the data, then those same people should simply be able to generate their own data.

But why should they generate their own research? This was done with public money.

 

[jomper]

I don't mind looking. It seems pretty perfect to me. The final part of collapse, the fold, emanates from where the initial damage occurred.



How did NIST reach its conclusions? NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

Figure 5–157 shows a closer view of the western edge of the north face of WTC 7 taken from a video clip recorded from the same location as that shown in Figure 5–152. This clip was recorded several minutes later than Figure 5–152, as is evident by the change in the shadow on the white building in the foreground. The clip was shot within a couple of minutes of the WTC 7 collapse at 5:20:52 p.m., consistent with the recollection of the videographer. At this time, flames are barely visible on the 13th floor at roughly the same location as in Figure 5–152. Heavy, dark smoke is visible rising along the east side of the building. There is also considerable smoke passing across the north face. The source of this smoke is not immediately obvious.
During the clip from which Figure 5–157 was taken, the camera zoomed in on the same area shown in Figure 5–152. Heavy smoke was visible rising from near the northwest corner. Suddenly, several pulses of jet flames several stories high were pushed out of a window near 13-54B on the 13th floor. These pulses continued for about 6 s. Figure 5–158 shows a frame captured during one of these pulses.
The amount of smoke on the north face increased dramatically at the same time as the pulses. This is the only time that this unusual behavior was observed for WTC 7. Similar behaviors observed during the fires in the WTC towers (NCSTAR-1-5A) were attributed to internal pressure pulses generated by events such as local collapses within the buildings. Since the exact time for this particular event is unknown, it is not possible to associate it with a known event within WTC 7.
Figure 5–159 shows a view of the north face of WTC 7 just seconds before it began to collapse. It is a frame from a video clip shot from the northwest at 5:20:17 p.m. ± 15 s. Comparison with Figure 5–139 indicates that the fires visible in the image were located on the 11th floor between Columns 50 and 52, showing that the fire on this floor was continuing to spread to the west just prior to the collapse of the building.

Content from External Source

The above is a fragment detailing the start of the real collapse, and not the "truther" version.

It records the initial floor cascade, prior to column 79 going unstable.

The report is lucid and rigorous. You should read it sometime.

I do not see a perfect representation of the collapse in this gif. I would not expect one, but I would not accept it without independent verification.

 

[Oxymoron]

Are there some examples of the false statements?

These are some of the issues but I think by the sound of it there was much more... lots of evidence destroyed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general.

The panel even considered taking the matter to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe, commission member Tim Roemer said.

"For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD [the North American Aerospace Defense Command] and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances," The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
"Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
"In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center," according to The Washington Post.

Content from External Source

Notably, Afghanistan is listed as one of the Countries which warned of the attack. (Twice) Note how this corroborates Susan Lindauer's testimony.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/04/con06125.html

At the outset and again during the spring and summer of 2001, the Bush White House repeatedly received expert advice on the gravity of the threat as well as many warnings from around the world of an impending attack. These warnings, described as the most urgent in decades, specified the use of hijacked aircraft as weapons. For example:

• In March, Italy warned us of a very, very secret al-Qaeda plan.
• In April (and again in July), Afghanistan warned us of a huge attack on America and aircraft suicide missions.
• In June, Germany warned us of plans to use commercial aircraft as weapons.
• In July, Egypt warned us that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the U.S.; 4 of them had received flight training.
• In July and August, England warned us of multiple airplane hijackings and that al-Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing a terrorist attack.
• In August, Russia (Putin) warned that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets.
• In late summer, Jordan warned us that aircraft would be used in a major attack inside the U.S.

During this period, President Bush received 40 separate CIA briefings on the al-Qaeda threat. One of the last ones said al-Qaeda was “determined to attack the United States.” The CIA Director personally told the White House to expect a significant attack in the near future that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties … attack preparations have been made, will occur with little or no warning … this is going to be a big one.” At no time did the President take control, call agency heads together, go into crisis mode, or warn the public. Yet, one simple thing could have made all the difference – calling a cabinet meeting to require protection of commercial aircraft before takeoff – just that one thing.

Following the attack, the President evaded all responsibility and, for a year, attempted to block formation of a congressionally-created investigative commission. When that didn’t work, he stonewalled the commission for more than another year -- creating much delay and limiting access to witnesses and sensitive records. The White House obstructionist tactics finally forced the Commission to threaten use of subpoenas.

Content from External Source

Even Fox pulled it's finger out.

At least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department's Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11.


Fox News, as part of an ongoing investigation, exclusively obtained a clean copy of the report and spoke to several principal witnesses, including an intelligence and data collector who asked that she not be named.
The witness told Fox News she was interviewed twice by a Defense Department investigator. She said she told the investigator that it was highly likely a department database included the picture of Atta, whom she knew under an alias, Mohammed el-Sayed.
"When it came to the picture, (the investigator) he was fairly hostile," the witness told Fox News. She said it seemed the investigator just didn't want to hear it. "Meaning that he'd ask the same question over and over again, and, you know, you get to the point you go, well, you know... it's the same question, it's the same answer."
The IG report didn't accurately reflect her statements to investigators, she said, adding that she doesn't think the investigator simply misunderstood her.
Lt. Col Tony Shaffer, an operative involved with Able Danger, said he was interviewed three times by Defense investigators. He claims it was an effort to wear down the witnesses and intimidate them. Two other witnesses, one a military contractor and the other a retired military officer, said they had the same experience. The two witnesses spoke to Fox News on the condition of anonymity because they said they feared retaliation. A fifth witness told Fox that statements to investigators were ignored.
"My last interview was very, very hostile," Shaffer told Fox News last month before he was ordered by the department not to discuss portions of his book, "Operation Dark Heart," which included a chapter on the Able Danger data mining project.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-report-suggest-cover-findings/#ixzz2Ri5dIviP

​

Content from External Source

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...rorism-czar-alleges-massive-911-cover-up.html

Richard Clarke – the top Bush and Clinton counter-terrorism czar – alleges that there was a high-level decision in the CIA to suppress key information regarding two Al Qaeda hijackers inside the U.S:

The phones of two hijackers Clarke is talking about – Mihdhar and Hazmi – were tapped by the NSA. As I reported in 2008:

I’ve previously pointed outthat the U.S. government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers’ own mouth. Most of what I wrote about involved the NSA and other intelligence services tapping top Al Qaeda operatives’ phone calls outside the U.S.
However, it turns out that the NSA was also tapping the hijackers’ phone calls inside the U.S.
Specifically, hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi lived in San Diego, California, for 2 years before 9/11. Numerous phone calls between al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in San Diego and a high-level Al Qaeda operations base in Yemen were made in those 2 years.
The NSA had been tapping and eavesdropping on all calls made from that Yemen phone for years. So NSA recorded all of these phone calls.
Indeed, the CIA knew as far back as 1999 that al-Mihdhar was coming to the U.S. Specifically, in 1999, CIA operatives tailing al-Mihdha in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, obtained a copy of his passport. It contained visas for both Malaysia and the U.S., so they knew it was likely he would go from Kuala Lumpur to America.
The above information comes from James Bamford, the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings for almost a decade – where he won a number of journalism awards for his coverage national security issues – whose articles have appeared in dozens of publications, including cover stories for the New York Times Magazine, Washington Post Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times Magazine, and is the only author to write any books (he wrote 3) on the NSA.

​

Content from External Source

​

 

[Mick West]

But why should they generate their own research? This was done with public money.

Because it would cost about the same to generate as to verify.

I do not see a perfect representation of the collapse in this gif. I would not expect one, but I would not accept it without independent verification.

Do you have some suggestions as to who should do this? Has anyone said that they would, and explained what is involved, and how much it would cost?

There's really no incentive. It would simply give truthers one less thing to talk about - and even then probably would not meet everyone's satisfaction.

 

[George B]

Because it would cost about the same to generate as to verify.



Do you have some suggestions as to who should do this? Has anyone said that they would, and explained what is involved, and how much it would cost?

There's really no incentive. It would simply give truthers one less thing to talk about - and even then probably would not meet everyone's satisfaction.

So you contend the Truthers are a cottage industry and don't want the truth either? Then what are the options . . . how do honest people finally get the truth?

 

[someGuy]

Hm
Well...

All I know is...

Saudi hijackers, therefore, let's invade Iraq
...
I have never found a convincing logical explaination for this one
Not to mention ben laden, their supposed boss, who was also a Saudi... Hidding in Afghanistan...

What's the link between Iraq and those guys ?

Some informant who told the CIA what every1 knew for years?
That saddam had bio weapons ?
That's it ?


So Iraq is just a big mistake...Because one informant lied ?

I'm skeptical


So yeah, building7...
Why should any1 believe the official story after the illegal invasion of Iraq and the lame reasons to justify it?
Seriously

 

[jomper]

Because it would cost about the same to generate as to verify.



Do you have some suggestions as to who should do this? Has anyone said that they would, and explained what is involved, and how much it would cost?

There's really no incentive. It would simply give truthers one less thing to talk about - and even then probably would not meet everyone's satisfaction.

Mick, I joined this thread and linked to Ronald Brookman's FOIA requests, as well as his analysis of the WTC 7 report. He is clearly qualified to review it. Were it not for NIST's refusal to release the data, cloud computing could crunch the numbers. The incentive need be nothing more than doing proper science - you seem surprisingly resistant to an idea which, one assumes, you think would only strengthen your case.

 

[Jazzy]

Hm. Well... All I know is... Saudi hijackers, therefore, let's invade Iraq... I have never found a convincing logical explanation for this one. Not to mention ben laden, their supposed boss, who was also a Saudi... Hiding in Afghanistan... What's the link between Iraq and those guys? Some informant who told the CIA what every1 knew for years? That saddam had bio weapons? That's it? So Iraq is just a big mistake... Because one informant lied? I'm skeptical.

Me too.

So yeah, building7... Why should any1 believe the official story after the illegal invasion of Iraq and the lame reasons to justify it? Seriously.

Because it's an engineering investigation which has nothing to do with a cultural clash and warmongering, every word and figure of which can be studied, analyzed and criticized by anyone who can read English, do maths, and understand physical principles.

If you can not or will not do that yourself, you had better find someone you can trust who can do the above three things to explain the report to you.

If, on the other hand, you decide the report is "lame" without reading it, and just on the say-so of other people with your disinclination, then you will surely be aiding the very people and cultural attitudes you so detest.

That is exactly how they came to power; on the backs of the indifferent, those who didn't want to know the details, didn't care to know the details, didn't want to be bothered with the details.

Over a short period of time, your responsibility for future events like this will grow.

You won't accept this now, but as you approach the end of your life, you will.

 

[Jazzy]

So you contend the Truthers are a cottage industry and don't want the truth either? Then what are the options . . . how do honest people finally get the truth?

Where's the connection between "truthers" and honesty, George? I've never found one. That they cannot be honest is one of the reasons they'll never discover it.

There's absolutely no difference between the way the PTB cover up, and the way the "Truth Movement" covers up. They are both sides of a mirror. If you want examples I'll give them. Neither party will EVER speak the truth.

Technically, the "truth" is never known. Only partial truths are available. The approach to "truth" is asymptotic, if you like. Certainly, in your case.

 

[jomper]

Where's the connection between "truthers" and honesty, George? I've never found one. That they cannot be honest is one of the reasons they'll never discover it.

There's absolutely no difference between the way the PTB cover up, and the way the "Truth Movement" covers up. They are both sides of a mirror. If you want examples I'll give them. Neither party will EVER speak the truth.

Technically, the "truth" is never known. Only partial truths are available. The approach to "truth" is asymptotic, if you like. Certainly, in your case.

W was brought to power through widespread manipulation of electoral registers, among other things. The people behind him were able to put an obvious halfwit into government. And yet his administration's agencies are incapable of manipulating a report, and we should not expect its supposedly scientific conclusions to be verified.

 

[jomper]

That was supposed to be in reply to 1079. Sorry!

 

[Jazzy]

W was brought to power through widespread manipulation of electoral registers, among other things. The people behind him were able to put an obvious halfwit into government. And yet his administration's agencies are incapable of manipulating a report, and we should not expect its supposedly scientific conclusions to be verified.

Electoral registers may well be manipulated, but science and engineering are unmanipulable.

They are measurable, conform to rules, come to consistent conclusions, and make predictions. The information they use is generally common to everyone.

That you throw in the words "supposedly scientific" indicates you don't know what the science is, and wish to color your own mind, and the minds of others, with doubt and mistrust, without the hard work of detailed analysis.

If the conclusions of the people that prepared this report were wrong, then any capable person can prove the conclusions are wrong, because the information in the NIST Report is there for everyone to see.

Your aim seems to be to persuade others, and yourself, not to read and understand the report in the first place, and then to propagate the belief it is wrong.

That doesn't seem too wise to me.

It doesn't appear to serve anyone's interest*. Not even your own.

* Except the interest of the PTB, of course.

 

[Mick West]

Mick, I joined this thread and linked to Ronald Brookman's FOIA requests, as well as his analysis of the WTC 7 report. He is clearly qualified to review it. Were it not for NIST's refusal to release the data, cloud computing could crunch the numbers. The incentive need be nothing more than doing proper science - you seem surprisingly resistant to an idea which, one assumes, you think would only strengthen your case.

I'm not resistant to it at all. In fact I WANT the data to be released. I just don't think it's going to happen, and I don't think it's significant.

Why doesn't Brookman just make a more limited model himself? Way less work than verifyting the full model.

And cloud computing is not free.

 

[George B]

Electoral registers may well be manipulated, but science and engineering are unmanipulable.

They are measurable, conform to rules, come to consistent conclusions, and make predictions. The information they use is generally common to everyone.

That you throw in the words "supposedly scientific" indicates you don't know what the science is, and wish to color your own mind, and the minds of others, with doubt and mistrust, without the hard work of detailed analysis.

If the conclusions of the people that prepared this report were wrong, then any capable person can prove the conclusions are wrong, because the information in the NIST Report is there for everyone to see.

Your aim seems to be to persuade others, and yourself, not to read and understand the report in the first place, and then to propagate the belief it is wrong.

That doesn't seem too wise to me.

It doesn't appear to serve anyone's interest*. Not even your own.

* Except the interest of the PTB, of course.

Seems to me Jazzy . . . science, engineering, scientific method ,deductive logic, etc. to work appropriately require certain necessary elements or assumptions . . .

1) Data which is the proper representation of reality and is not intentionally withheld, altered or removed from analysis
2) Verifiable and reproducible process. . . I can take your data and process . . . then reproduce your result every time unless you make a mistake. . .
3) If I allow the exclusion of critical data or process from review and testing and then validate the outcome reliant on this excluded data and process what have I accomplished . . .

I realize one can take pieces or segments of the 911 evidence and create pockets of scientifically verifiable and reproducible product . . . I have no argument with that . . . the building blocks of this saga within themselves may be perfect but they can be placed together in a matrix which either builds a solid and useful building or a structure which is a fraud (because the blueprints were intentionally altered) and may be even dangerous . . . as you stated earlier. . . the ultimate truth one can try to reach but is always a grasp away . . . asymptotic

 

[F4Jock]

I'm not resistant to it at all. In fact I WANT the data to be released. I just don't think it's going to happen, and I don't think it's significant.

Why doesn't Brookman just make a more limited model himself? Way less work than verifyting the full model.

And cloud computing is not free.

I'll go you one better Mick, NOTHING more is going to happen because no one can provide any new, different and compelling reasons to reopen the investigations. It also goes to reality. IMO the people and official entities who could revisit some areas won't bother because they know it's a waste of time and money. Their conclusions won't be accepted by the CT'ers unless they fit their desired scenario.

 

[George B]

I'll go you one better Mick, NOTHING more is going to happen because no one can provide any new, different and compelling reasons to reopen the investigations. It also goes to reality. IMO the people and official entities who could revisit some areas won't bother because they know it's a waste of time and money. Their conclusions won't be accepted by the CT'ers unless they fit their desired scenario.

F4Jock you are correct about the conclusions won't be accepted by the CT 'ers nor according to the Polls much of anyone else via Oxy's information . . .

Even the commission co chair urges people to keep asking questions

But the advice here is... 'Move on... nothing to see'.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html

9/11 Commissioners admit that they never got to the bottom of 9/11. For example:

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11

Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don’t have to get bogged down in reading this section – you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):

• The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

Content from External Source

And according to a poll, only 16% of Americans, (and I suggest far fewer of world citizens), think the Government is telling the truth about 9/11... So that puts the debunkers on this forum in a very small minority.

According to a scientific poll by New York Times & CBS News, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11, while 81% think it is hiding something or mostly lying. CNN poll shows that 89% believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

 

[F4Jock]

F4Jock you are correct about the conclusions won't be accepted by the CT 'ers nor according to the Polls much of anyone else according Oxy's information . . .

If these polls were true, in light of all the internet activity I'd expect a HUGE groundswell of clamor in favor of reopening the investigation. There just isn't! So perhaps what all of these people think is that the "something" being hidden, what is being "covered up" isn't important enough to bother them? But even if true it's apparent, for better or worse, that most people have moved on. For that reason alone the focus needs to be on challenging what we may be being fed now, and improving future transparency and veracity. All the CT'ers are doing by flogging this dead horse is further alienating themselves from those they need on their side.