WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cairenn said:
I am suggesting that they didn't have the steel to check.
Click to expand...
How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that FEMA identified steel from WTC 7 and tested it, including recommendations for further testing?

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the scientific method involves looking at all the evidence, including, you know, the actual physical evidence, before coming up with a theory -- not the other way around?

I must've pointed this out to you at least five times in this thread and you still don't seem to get it. The very least I'd expect from you as a "debunker" at this point is an attempt to undermine the relevance of FEMA's study of the WTC 7 steel or an attempt to explain why NIST didn't mention it -- not just dull repetition of something you've been repeatedly disabused of.

I'm not sure what's more bizarre: your insistence that there was no steel from the building to test, or Mick's assertion that the complete collapse of a building was not sufficient reason to test it.

Figure-D-17-Appendix-C-FEMA.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jazzy said:
But the simulation is NOT the proof.

The proof is laid out in the timeline and development of the fire situation. It is false to argue that a further confirmation of the proof by simulation is invalidated by the non-release of the input data for the simulation. The input data accounting for the fire timeline and resulting collapse is already sufficient proof, in that there are no sensible arguments which can be raised to the contrary, and the simulation, showing a reasonable match with the photographic and video record, acts as a further confirmation.

To insist on the simulation input data is to insist that terrorists have access to it, and at this point my politeness will probably end.
Click to expand...
Computer simulation of the debris falling to the ground and fracturing the water main . . . seems we know the seismic strength, the depth of the mains, the size, materials of construction, the timeline . . . I want to be sure someone didn't sabotage the water supply . . . and I am sure the computer simulation will prove just how that happened . . . just like it proved how WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed . . . ;) It is easy . . . determine what you want it to prove and make sure the simulation shows you the proper results and then refuse to share the data . . .
 
Last edited:
Mick said:
Test it for what?

The intent of the NIST investigation was to learn how the fire and the WTC1 debris damage eventually resulted in the collapse. What exactly did they need to test the steel for?
Click to expand...

You are saying it yourself now.
NIST had the preset intent to only investigate the "collapse by fire" avenue.
This of course is not an genuine investigation.
 
George B said:
Computer simulation of the debris falling to the ground and fracturing the water main . . . seems we know the seismic strength, the depth of the mains, the size, materials of construction, the timeline . . . I want to be sure someone didn't sabotage the water supply . . . and I am sure the computer simulation will prove just how that happened . . . just like it proved how WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed . . . ;) It is easy . . . determine what you want it to prove and make sure the simulation shows you the proper results and then refuse to share the data . . .
Click to expand...
The opinion of the courts, seems NIST could not enter their findings as evidence in court !!!!!. . . http://www.thefederation.org/documents/7.Trial Use of Computer-Generated-Cellucci.pdf

Simulations, on the other hand, are subject to the same scrutiny as more traditional scientific tests. Generally, a proponent of simulation evidence must establish that it is "based upon sufficient facts or data," that the facts and data upon which it is based "are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field," that it is "the product of reliable principles and methods," and that the supporting expert witness "applied principles and methods reliably" when creating or using the simulation. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 702, 703; Pierce v. State,718 So. 2d 806, 809 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997). As the validity of the conclusions drawn by asimulation depends on proper application of scientific principles, a foundation must be laidestablishing that proper methodology was applied to analyze appropriate data. See, Cauley, 32P.3d at 606-07; Tollardo, 134 N.M. at 435, 77 P.3d at 1028. Thus, a proponent of a simulation must show that "(1) the computer is functioning properly; (2) the input and underlying equations are sufficiently complete and accurate (and disclosed to the opposing party, so that they may challenge them); and (3) the program is generally accepted by the appropriate community ofscientists." Commercial Union Ins. Co., 412 Mass. at 549, 591 N.E.2d at 168 (citingCommonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266, 269 (1963)). It also is recommended that some showing be made that the computer model or reconstruction is not easily replicated by other evidence. Fatalo, 346 Mass. at 269 [citations omitted].



Content from External Source
 
Jazzy said:
But the simulation is NOT the proof.

The proof is laid out in the timeline and development of the fire situation. It is false to argue that a further confirmation of the proof by simulation is invalidated by the non-release of the input data for the simulation. The input data accounting for the fire timeline and resulting collapse is already sufficient proof, in that there are no sensible arguments which can be raised to the contrary, and the simulation, showing a reasonable match with the photographic and video record, acts as a further confirmation.

To insist on the simulation input data is to insist that terrorists have access to it, and at this point my politeness will probably end.
Click to expand...
To insist on the simulation input data is to insist that terrorists have access to it, and at this point my politeness will probably end.
Content from External Source
Did you ever hear of a third party review by select experts chosen by the interested parties to validate the data and simulation . . . sworn to secrecy. . . just like the original contractors . . . :)
 
hiper said:
For the thermitic residue found by an independent team of researchers.
After all these people are no tinfoil batshit individuals like myself.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Don't you find it a little bit weird NIST stubbornly refuses any testing of the dust...
Click to expand...

Actually, yes they are [...] individuals like yourself :)

Bentham is a "self publishing" house - if you cannot get something into a reputable publication you pay Bentham and they will publish it for you with few or no questions asked once the cheque has cleared.

Professors or not - that hey find the presence of aluminium and iron in building wreckage to be something worth reporting on, and that htey had to pay to get it published, tells me I have no reason to take them seriously.
 
MikeC said:
Actually, yes they are batshit individuals like yourself :)

Bentham is a "self publishing" house - if you cannot get something into a reputable publication you pay Bentham and they will publish it for you with few or no questions asked once the cheque has cleared.

Professors or not - that hey find the presence of aluminium and iron in building wreckage to be something worth reporting on, and that htey had to pay to get it published, tells me I have no reason to take them seriously.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm . . . and why should we take what NIST has concocted as evidence. . . .it doesn't even meet the criteria to be used as evidence in any court in the land. . . .and we are not talking about some little insurance fraud case . . . We are talking about the crime of the century, the most important crime in the annals of recorded history. . .:)
 
MikeC said:
Actually, yes they are [...] individuals like yourself :)

Bentham is a "self publishing" house - if you cannot get something into a reputable publication you pay Bentham and they will publish it for you with few or no questions asked once the cheque has cleared.

Professors or not - that hey find the presence of aluminium and iron in building wreckage to be something worth reporting on, and that htey had to pay to get it published, tells me I have no reason to take them seriously.
Click to expand...

You don't take seriously a team of researchers that find chemical agents in the dust...

You do take seriously a government institution that :

1) Has not tested the WTC dust at all... although this would be a guideline step in a genuine investigation
(nfpa 921 guide for fire and explosion investigations) into the total collapse of a steel framed buidling (WTC 7) allegedly due to fire.

2) Has not tested any actual physical steel from WTC 7 because..."Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began"

3) Has not released the parameters they used to come up with the 3D model of the collapse of WTC7.


These are the actions of the institution that receives your full confidence.
 
hiper said:
You don't take seriously a team of researchers that find chemical agents in the dust
Click to expand...
Not people that went looking for them and were happy when they found iron oxide and powdered aluminum when these are the "nano" constituents of METAL PRIMING PAINT.

You do take seriously a government institution that
Click to expand...
gives me a report that I can read and understand, with figures I can check.

Has not tested the WTC dust at all... although this would be a guideline step
Click to expand...
if a loud bang had been heard before the building fell down.

nfpa 921 guide
Click to expand...
I can't access.

Has not tested any actual physical steel from WTC 7 because
Click to expand...
it had the specifications before it.

Has not released the parameters they used to come up with the 3D model of the collapse of WTC7
Click to expand...
Because terrorists are members of the public.

These are the actions of the institution that receives
Click to expand...
no support at all from me.

How can an atheist anarchist permaculturalist support either you or that?
 
Jazzy said:
Not people that went looking for them and were happy when they found iron oxide and powdered aluminum when these are the "nano" constituents of METAL PRIMING PAINT.
Click to expand...

The nano-thermate residue they found is made from the nano scale up. You can't get it by flying airplanes into skyscrapers and collecting the dust.

gives me a report that I can read and understand, with figures I can check.
Click to expand...

A report that ignores national standards set for fire & explosive investigation.

if a loud bang had been heard before the building fell down.
Click to expand...

Is of no importance.
If there is high order damage like a steel high rise totally collapsing there are guidelines to follow one of which is testing the dust for accelerants or explosive residue.

I can't access.
Click to expand...

http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=921

it had the specifications before it.
Click to expand...

Specifications of new steel obviously are not the same as the specifications of that same steel after a total collapse.

Because terrorists are members of the public.
Click to expand...

The whole public is in danger of steel high rise buildings totally collapsing due to fire.

no support at all from me.

How can an atheist anarchist permaculturalist support either you or that?
Click to expand...

A sane rational person looks at the evidence.
 
hiper said:
The nano-thermate residue they found is made from the nano scale up. You can't get it by flying airplanes into skyscrapers and collecting the dust.
Click to expand...

Anything that is vaporized, burnt, melted, or in a chemical reaction is "made from the nano scale up".
 
George B said:
I agree with the alien. . . .however, our friends here do not accept that the government could be a coconspirator as a premise. . . therefore, your position is pure folly to them. . . :)
Click to expand...

The Alien might ask what evidence there is that suggests it was the Government before naming them as one of the suspects.

And how do we know the alien didn't do it?
 
Mick said:
The Alien might ask what evidence there is that suggests it was the Government before naming them as one of the suspects.

And how do we know the alien didn't do it?
Click to expand...

If you go back in this thread you'll see that I've suggested that!!

Actually they ARE right tho Mick, because according to Michio Kaku, someone for whom I have great respect, infinite parallel universes DO exist and in one the government IS doubtless implicated.

Problem is it ain't this one!
 
Mick said:
The Alien might ask what evidence there is that suggests it was the Government before naming them as one of the suspects.

And how do we know the alien didn't do it?
Click to expand...
Aliens would never do such a thing . . . their moral code wouldn't allow such skulduggery . . . :). They would also recognize the inquisitor, judge and jury holds all the cards . . . you cannot fight City Hall . . .

If you control the investigation, the evidence, the budget, the careers of the oversight . . . and then evoke national security to withhold evidence how would anyone know if they are being honest ?
 
Mick said:
The Alien might ask what evidence there is that suggests it was the Government before naming them as one of the suspects.
Click to expand...

The Alien does not judge. He only sees 2 opposing versions from which he can reasonably conclude only 1 is true.
 
hiper said:
The Alien does not judge. He only sees 2 opposing versions from which he can reasonably conclude only 1 is true.
Click to expand...

But you are setting up a false equivalence in your argument here. There's two versions, one of which is very well defined, and has overwhelming evidence to support it. The other is very poorly defined, and has no evidence to support it.

The investigation is also not just by "the government", plenty of people have looked into various aspects of 9/11. Many papers have been written all round the world. Other governments must have studied it.
 
Mick said:
But you are setting up a false equivalence in your argument here. There's two versions, one of which is very well defined, and has overwhelming evidence to support it. The other is very poorly defined, and has no evidence to support it.

The investigation is also not just by "the government", plenty of people have looked into various aspects of 9/11. Many papers have been written all round the world. Other governments must have studied it.
Click to expand...
The accuracy of the research (segmented pieces of the investigation should by probability be true) has little to do with the possible complicity of some elements of the US government with the hijackes, etc. . .
 
hiper said:
Specifications of new steel obviously are not the same as the specifications of that same steel after a total collapse.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I mean really badly wrong. Steel that has buckled can be entirely undamaged by buckling. Damaged steel is still to specification anyway. Fire-affected steel has its crystal structure altered by the heat soak and the slow cool, but that can be corrected by reheating and quenching. Its specification will then be EXACTLY to the original.

The whole public is in danger of steel high rise buildings totally collapsing due to fire.
Click to expand...
True. Steel high rise buildings are protected by sprinkler systems which put out normal fires, but if the sprinklers are rendered ineffective its a whole new ball game.

A sane rational person looks at the evidence.
Click to expand...
Sane rational people know there are risks inherent in any activity, and don't make statements like: "The whole public is in danger of steel high rise buildings totally collapsing due to fire".

myself said:
Because terrorists are members of the public
Click to expand...

jomper said:
More argumentum ad metum -- or ad terrorem, if you prefer. It appears you can bring a Jazzy to a logical fallacy, but you can't make him think.
Click to expand...
Amended to "Because terrorists and fools are members of the public".
 
Other governments must have studied it.
Click to expand...
Governments are motivated by political rather than scientific agendas, so I don't think this proves anything, but since you mention it some governments are led by people who have been calling for a new scientific investigation for years, and were elected with that popular understanding. Still, Morsi's no expert is he. Apart from the doctorate in Materials Science from California, that is.
 
What is important is the ability to evacuate the building quickly. I believe that some of the record high rises in other countries have their elevators designed so that they are not dependent on the building's power system.
 
jomper said:
Governments are motivated by political rather than scientific agendas, so I don't think this proves anything, but since you mention it some governments are led by people who have been calling for a new scientific investigation for years, and were elected with that popular understanding. Still, Morsi's no expert is he. Apart from the doctorate in Materials Science from California, that is.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention a few minor things: Greed, religion, self-preservation, influence over others, need for vindication, validation, relevance .... Politics is too facile and jejune a term when plumbing the depths of governmental motivation. As well, those terms can be applied to businesses AND individuals, even those with doctorates.

But here is something I'll ask (And doubtless be sorry I did.). As far as I know, Building 7 came down with no loss of life. The towers were already down so if one buys into the conspiracy motivation of governmental involvement to precipitate an attack on the Mideast, it was already there. Why bother bringing down 7 at all especially when it could be focused on as some sort of demolition? Wouldn't any entity trying to cover its tracks make it a point of NOT doing this? (I'm betting I already know the answer. I'll see if I win and no, I did no research before asking.)
 
Mick said:
But you are setting up a false equivalence in your argument here.
Click to expand...

The equivalence is legitimate...

The 9/11 truth movement is no fringe group and do look at what the good neighbor Mexico thinks.

World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries
managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park,
polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008

500px-911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008.png

one of which is very well defined, and has overwhelming evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Handpicking the evidence for investigation is not my idea of building a solid base for a very well defined version of events.
Neither is destruction of evidence.

The other is very poorly defined, and has no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

So you think 3 massive skyscrapers... all collapsing like a house of cards, all at the same day and all due to fire
is more convincing than the opposing version?
 
hiper said:
The equivalence is legitimate...

The 9/11 truth movement is no fringe group and do look at what the good neighbor Mexico thinks.

World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries
managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park,
polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008

500px-911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008.png



Handpicking the evidence for investigation is not my idea of building a solid base for a very well defined version of events.
Neither is destruction of evidence.



So you think 3 massive skyscrapers... all collapsing like a house of cards, all at the same day and all due to fire
is more convincing than the opposing version?
Click to expand...

Gee! Looks like Al Queda and other possibilities are doing pretty well except in the Middle East! Also, you give no details of the polls or the information they are based on. When you add it all up your chart just proved that 9/11 truthers ARE essentially a fringe group. Thanks for that!
 
You guys should watch this if you have the time or bandwidth - I haven't myself so I don't know how thorough it is - good premise though
​
 
F4Jock said:
Gee! Looks like Al Queda and other possibilities are doing pretty well except in the Middle East! Also, you give no details of the polls or the information they are based on. When you add it all up your chart just proved that 9/11 truthers ARE essentially a fringe group. Thanks for that!
Click to expand...
Wow! That is more people than I thought that don't buy the official story . . . ;)

And I bet most of them didn't even read the NIST Report . . .
 
jomper said:
And you are apparently too foolish to see you are committing a logical fallacy even when it is pointed out to you twice.
Click to expand...
And that isn't related to the scenario of actually providing useful information to terrorists (and fools).

The fallacy you promulgate is yours, and that is that the report depends on the simulation. That, absurd as it is to me, appears to be what you believe.

It's what your reasoning appears to depend upon. But the report precedes it, and is quite complete. The simulation simply demonstrates a similar sequence of collapse to the video record, and confirms the order of events. Had it not done so, then the hypothetical order would have had to be amended in some way. It would have been a process of convergence, using a process which started probably 95% accurate, but probably closed at around 99%.

It's ironic that people can misuse such information, gathered as it is by a subtle aspect of scientific engineering research. But it's a strange world, full of religious people.
 
hiper said:
So you think 3 massive skyscrapers... all collapsing like a house of cards, all at the same day and all due to fire
is more convincing than the opposing version?
Click to expand...

Vastly more convincing that silent fireproof nano-thermite. How would that even work?
 
Mick said:
Vastly more convincing that silent fireproof nano-thermite. How would that even work?
Click to expand...
Point being people don't need to believe any particular theory about the collapse to disbelieve the official story . . . the US Government has given many people in this country and the World many reasons to doubt their honesty and belief in justice . . . maybe no country can; however, the more one interferes and blow things up the less people trust anything you say . . . funny thing about human nature . . . :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Oystein
Debunked: Bobby McIlvaine died at 8:46 while entering the North Tower
Replies
2
Views
2K
Oystein
Oystein
S
Did NIST edit WTC building 7 footage?
Replies
4
Views
3K
Mendel
Mendel
m3tamnemonic
A fun story about helicopters and the UFO thought process.
Replies
3
Views
1K
John J.
John J.
Marc Powell
  • Locked
Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse
2
Replies
58
Views
10K
deirdre
deirdre
Marc Powell
Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash
2
Replies
48
Views
11K
investigating911
I

Latest posts

Back
Top