"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "

Status
Not open for further replies.

mynym

Banned
Banned
Perhaps you could start by pointing out (quoting) something wrong in the NIST report regarding the fires and collapse in WTC7?


I wish I had more time. But, generally... although this is a summary of great feats of imagination/simulation it's not the most likely hypothesis:
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

What are you imagining or "simulating" happened, they expanded until connections failed and then some vague use of imagination/simulation with respect to a "progressive collapse" resulted in the observable evidence of a roof line headed toward the ground in a relatively symmetrical way (observation) at what seem to be free fall speeds (observation)?

I wish they entered this into their equations: observation > simulation. If they had been able to use Occam's razor instead of engaging in flights of fancy then their imaginations/simulations could have used a little trim. (But then how would they get their donuts delivered each day of the "investigation"... and what about their careers? Perhaps someone should have entered this into the equation that produced their simulations: "I like donuts.")
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
How does one carry 4,000 in their shoe?

I forgot, it was listed in the report as a "sock like object." Makes sense... they wouldn't want stinky and dirty money, I suppose. You know the lower level guys who weren't even intelligent enough not to say things like, "We're not your problem, the Palestinians are your problem... investigate them.. or somethin'." actually brought a civil suit for violations of their civil rights? As I recall, their handler let the dumb ones talk on the talk shows while he sat in the audience. And isn't that the way it always is. His handlers were probably watching him... and so forth, on up the pyramid scheme. (Their civil suit was thrown out because their lawyers forgot to use certified mail. Yeah.. the lawyer forgot... because they don't know the law... or somethin'. cough... Anyway, the low level types never get due process in cases like this. They better be careful, they're going to be detained indefinitely if they keep pulling stuff that could wind up in court. But at least they've had better luck than the two FBI agents that fell out of a helicopter after the Boston Bombing or Seal Team Six and so forth, etc.)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Ok so 9/11 happens... why hasn't anything happened since then?
Don't you think the people that pulled off 9/11 could have knocked down another plane or something like that?
The official explanation is just ridiculous.
Perhaps the facts that "they" made passenger plane cockpit doors bulletproof, and confiscated ALL sharps from passengers, increased non-invasive search techniques right across the board, stepped up their passenger vetting systems, etc., etc., etc., had something to do with it?

Do you have some difficulties with your long-term memory? There are some remedial processes to help you if you ask your doctor.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Sorry to chip in again, but you keep using this 'like a controlled demolition' phrase. Other than gravity, what other similarity do you see with controlled demolition? I ask as I see none.

I see a roof line falling straight down at what seem to be free fall speeds.

Secondly, how would perpetrators of such an event fireproof their explosive charges?

This is imaginary or hypothetical, on all sides. But they wouldn't need to fire proof their charges if they were going into the building to clean up the mess from its failure to collapse earlier in the day when the entire area was covered in dust from the fall of the first two towers and so forth. Of another hypothetical, track how long it would have taken the plane that went down in PA to get there and use that as an estimate for when the building was supposed to collapse.

In any case, you wouldn't need fire proof explosives if you were the people setting the fires in order to provide cover for the collapse of a building. Although, in theory, it probably wouldn't really matter given the epistemic inertia that most Americans have in such matters and as stupid as Team America, World Police usually is.

Thirdly, why is structural collapse due to weakened steel so absurd to you?

That seems to be an argument based on personal credulity.

The reason that the hypothesis of structural collapse due to "weakened steel" in this case is because the whole roof line headed toward the ground in a relatively symmetrical way into essentially its own footprint at what seem to be free fall speeds.

From your link:
Gary Martin of Cambs Police, said: "We have a number of theories and we're not resting on any particular one.

FM reception in parts of several counties has been affected

"But we need to know - was there anyone suspicious in the area or were there any bangs or fireworks or rockets flying through the air?


Well, it sounds like they're going to do better than NIST already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mynym

Banned
Banned
Perhaps the facts that "they" made passenger plane cockpit doors bulletproof, and confiscated ALL sharps from passengers, increased non-invasive search techniques right across the board, stepped up their passenger vetting systems, etc., etc., etc., had something to do with it?

But they almost didn't stop the underwear bomber. At least not until Chertoff (dual citizen, Talmudic mentality, etc.) sold Rapiscan's full body scanners and so forth...

You know I'd vote for someone to stop bra bombers. Down with underwear bombers... up with bra bombers, someone should hire Katy Perry to play the part, she's already had some practice with pyrotechniques and shooting firework out of her boobs. That way we could expand into Mexico and take over the territory of Mexican drug cartels in the name of national security and so forth. And let's face it, they'd be better off if we ruled them anyway. Just kidding.

But anyway, notice how none of these events seem to happen on the border with people sneaking bombs in and going to populated areas and so forth. It's always an underwear bomber or a shoe bomber and so forth. You would think that they would go to the southern border and walk across along with the rest of the illegal immigrants, yes? What we have here is a failure of imagination...
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I see a roof line falling straight down at what seem to be free fall speeds.



This is imaginary or hypothetical, on all sides. But they wouldn't need to fire proof their charges if they were going into the building to clean up the mess from its failure to collapse earlier in the day when the entire area was covered in dust from the fall of the first two towers and so forth. Of another hypothetical, track how long it would have taken the plane that went down in PA to get there and use that as an estimate for when the building was supposed to collapse.


In any case, you wouldn't need fire proof explosives if you were the people setting the fires in order to provide cover for the collapse of a building. Although, in theory, it probably wouldn't really matter given the epistemic inertia that most Americans have in such matters and as stupid as Team America, World Police usually is.



That seems to be an argument based on personal credulity.

The reason that the hypothesis of structural collapse due to "weakened steel" in this case is because the whole roof line headed toward the ground in a relatively symmetrical way into essentially its own footprint at what seem to be free fall speeds.

From your link: [/SIZE]

Well, it sounds like they're going to do better than NIST already.

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

In regards to symmetrical collapse NIST in their FAQ discuss this directly.

10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NIST’s answer to those assertions?



WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Content from External Source
You also mention free fall speed of the collapse. In fact it was 40% longer than free fall speed.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

  • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
  • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
  • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Content from External Source
You should read the FAQ and then discuss an issue you have a problem with.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
But anyway, notice how none of these events seem to happen on the border with people sneaking bombs in and going to populated areas and so forth. It's always an underwear bomber or a shoe bomber and so forth. You would think that they would go to the southern border and walk across along with the rest of the illegal immigrants, yes? What we have here is a failure of imagination...

You mean like this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bomber
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I see a roof line falling straight down at what seem to be free fall speeds.
Which is the immediate aftermath of a slender column buckling collapse. Such collapses are silent. Did you witness any explosions?

[...]

The rest of us understand that at least seventy tons of WTC1 steelwork hit WTC7 at 120 mph. That's like a passenger train running into a terminus at full speed.

[...]

The reason that the hypothesis of structural collapse due to "weakened steel"
That is NOT what the NIST Report says.

To remind you, column 79 failed because it lost its lateral support. Columns rely on their lateral supports, and will fail instantly by buckling instability when they are removed, even when cold.

[...] Leonhard Euler in 1745, [...]

In science, buckling is a mathematical instability, leading to a failure mode. Theoretically, buckling is caused by a bifurcation in the solution to the equations of static equilibrium. At a certain stage under an increasing load, further load is able to be sustained in one of two states of equilibrium: an undeformed state or a laterally-deformed state.
In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding. For example, during earthquakes, reinforced concrete members may experience lateral deformation of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. This mode of failure is also described as failure due to elastic instability. Mathematical analysis of buckling makes use of an axial load eccentricity that introduces a moment, which does not form part of the primary forces to which the member is subjected. When load is constantly being applied on a member, such as column, it will ultimately become large enough to cause the member to become unstable. Further load will cause significant and somewhat unpredictable deformations, possibly leading to complete loss of load-carrying capacity. The member is said to have buckled, to have deformed.
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling#Flutter_instability

what seem to be free fall speeds.
When a slender column fails in compression by buckling, free fall is its only option. And all the columns throughout the WTC were "slender", in civil engineering usage.

[...]
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Mick what are the chances of fire weakening a local part of a steel high rise and making it come down like a controlled demolition and this happening on 9/11 of all days?


I think you might need a computer simulation of his imagination in order to see where he's coming from if he's getting his ideas about it from NIST. I'm curious, who ultimately ran the investigation and/or looked the families in the eyes and told them about how all the buildings generally collapsed due to fires and so forth?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit.


Re-framing: "Here is the observable evidence that we are going to try to explain away with imaginary events and other evidence the best that we can."

This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse.

Ok, given that they're inventing this scenario to avoid the most likely hypothesis what is their evidence for doing so? (Their imaginary events and simulations will gradually get more complex as they go, I'd imagine.)

The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

So both the speed and the symmetric appearance (observation) are explained away with what seem to be relatively vague references to an internal collapse that there are clues of. I would note that you wouldn't have to imagine things away and create simulations based on imaginary events and so forth if you would begin with and investigate the most likely hypothesis given what was observed in the first place.

You also mention free fall speed of the collapse. In fact it was 40% longer than free fall speed.

Only if you begin by imagining things instead of going with what can be observed and beginning with the most likely hypothesis instead of inventing others.

This is consistent with the structural analysis model...
It seems to me like they wouldn't have to create models based on imaginary events and so forth if they began with the most likely hypothesis. Would you believe a chemtrailer if they created a model about how planes could be filled and then begin imagining that one element of their imaginary scenario was consistent with another equally imaginary element of their own imagination and so forth? I can only imagine it: "Well, even if it doesn't look like the plane is being filled with chemicals I have this model here that I just imagined, which explains how it could be. Just give me some donuts and a computer and let me simulate it, then my imagination will be the equivalent of empirical evidence."

"...did appear..." = observable evidence, usually

"...structural analysis model...." = bunk, often
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I think you might need a computer simulation of his imagination in order to see where he's coming from if he's getting his ideas about it from NIST. I'm curious, who ultimately ran the investigation and/or looked the families in the eyes and told them about how all the buildings generally collapsed due to fires and so forth?
Whoever it was, it was somebody who knew what they were talking about.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So both the speed and the symmetric appearance (observation) are explained away with what seem to be relatively vague references to an internal collapse that there are clues of.

How did the penthouse fall if there was no initial asymmetric internal collapse?

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It seems to me like they wouldn't have to create models based on imaginary events
There is a name for it: science, and, thinking about it, actually they were models based on real events.

if they began with the most likely hypothesis.
Hey, they did.

I reckon they saw WTC1 strike WTC7. Which you didn't, for some reason.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Re-framing: "Here is the observable evidence that we are going to try to explain away with imaginary events and other evidence the best that we can."



Ok, given that they're inventing this scenario to avoid the most likely hypothesis what is their evidence for doing so? (Their imaginary events and simulations will gradually get more complex as they go, I'd imagine.)



So both the speed and the symmetric appearance (observation) are explained away with what seem to be relatively vague references to an internal collapse that there are clues of. I would note that you wouldn't have to imagine things away and create simulations based on imaginary events and so forth if you would begin with and investigate the most likely hypothesis given what was observed in the first place.



Only if you begin by imagining things instead of going with what can be observed and beginning with the most likely hypothesis instead of inventing others.

It seems to me like they wouldn't have to create models based on imaginary events and so forth if they began with the most likely hypothesis. Would you believe a chemtrailer if they created a model about how planes could be filled and then begin imagining that one element of their imaginary scenario was consistent with another equally imaginary element of their own imagination and so forth? I can only imagine it: "Well, even if it doesn't look like the plane is being filled with chemicals I have this model here that I just imagined, which explains how it could be. Just give me some donuts and a computer and let me simulate it, then my imagination will be the equivalent of empirical evidence."

"...did appear..." = observable evidence, usually

"...structural analysis model...." = bunk, often

NIST did a report. I linked to the FAQ has a way to explain the general findings. Did you read the NIST report which has the details? What one thing from the NIST report do you have a problem with. NIST addressed why explosives are not the "most likely" answer. No explosive noises and no evidence of the massive preparation required.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick what are the chances of fire weakening a local part of a steel high rise and making it come down like a controlled demolition and this happening on 9/11 of all days?

I'm sorry, I'm not following this argument. Are you saying this was just a random event entirely unconnected to the other events of that day? Obviously the chances of it happening on any day other than 9/11 are very small. Since the collapses of the WTC towers were the cause of the fire in WTC7, and the cause of the lack of firefighting, and the cause of the damage that made the skin collapse the way it did, then I'd say the odds were about 1 in 1.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Which is the immediate aftermath of a slender column buckling collapse.

A relatively symmetrical collapse at free fall speeds (NIST = bunk on that point, I'd imagine.) is common?

Such collapses are silent.

Sounds like people involved in controlled demolitions should research that then. Because then they could bring a building down without as much noise.

Did you witness any explosions?

There were explosions witnessed throughout the day.



"Big explosion, blew us back into the 8th floor."

And not, "I think there was some super silent buckling going on in that building or something. I hope that someone can simulate a model of that someday."
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
A relatively symmetrical collapse at free fall speeds (NIST = bunk on that point, I'd imagine.) is common?

You say NIST = bunk. Do you have alternative evidence? Have you read the NIST report? As previously stated it was not symmetrical and it required 40% more than free fall speed. The NIST lays out their evidence. What about it is wrong?
 
Last edited:

mynym

Banned
Banned
No explosive noises...

There were explosions reported.

...and no evidence of the massive preparation required.

How did they investigate that?

Also, what would look like evidence of that to you and how would you go about finding it?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Repeated observation > models/imagination... although some people seem to like their science fairs and tooth pick models of things and so forth.

I reckon they saw WTC1 strike WTC7.

I don't know every detail about this event.

Who saw that or videoed it and what was the extent of it? You seem to be making it sound like the tower fell over on it.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
There were explosions witnessed throughout the day.



And not, "I think there was some super silent buckling going on in that building or something. I hope that someone can simulate a model of that someday."

There were. People falling from WTC 1&2 and impacting, WTC 1 collapsing and WTC 2 as well. What you don't hear is a 130-140 db noise right before or during the collapse. Unless you have video that has one.
 

hiper

Active Member
There is a name for it: science, and, thinking about it, actually they were models based on real events.

No Jazzy ignoring to investigate physical evidence is not science. It's pseudo-science.

But we all know why NIST preferred playing with their model over investigating the physical evidence.
Models leave room for tampering, tweaking and manipulation... and even that took them years... to finally give birth to the monstrosity called "the 3D WTC 7 collapse model"
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
There were explosions reported.



How did they investigate that?

Also, what would look like evidence of that to you and how would you go about finding it?

That would be here:

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

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Content from External Source
But you are not going to read that are you? I think you are trolling.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
No Jazzy ignoring to investigate physical evidence is not science. It's pseudo-science.

But we all know why NIST preferred playing with their model over investigating the physical evidence.
Models leave room for tampering, tweaking and manipulation... and even that took them years... to finally give birth to the monstrosity called "the 3D WTC 7 collapse model"

Has it has been explained several times, there was no way to determine which steel was from WTC-7. It would have been unscientific to just pick up some steel and test it not knowing where it came from.
 

hiper

Active Member
Has it has been explained several times, there was no way to determine which steel was from WTC-7. It would have been unscientific to just pick up some steel and test it not knowing where it came from.

That is just totally unacceptable and would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
That you can say these things and keep a straight face is beyond me.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
That is just totally unacceptable and would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
That you can say these things and keep a straight face is beyond me.

I did not say it. NIST did.

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

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Content from External Source
But you are not going to read the NIST report either are you?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Whoever it was, it was somebody who knew what they were talking about.

That's the problem. You seem to be confusing imagining things and manufacturing consensus based on models made out of toothpicks (I'd imagine...) with actual, observable evidence.

I'll read more about this* and post as I have time but it already reminds me of something else I've studied:
The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad...
If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance. Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People by Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)

*Here's the best book I've read on it: (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False
David Ray Griffin) So if you "debunk" his logic and arguments, then you'll basically be successful with me too. Which I would be fine with... it took me long enough to change my mind on this one in the first place. I'd like to change it back again, probably help me be less cynical about things and so on too.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
That's the problem. You seem to be confusing imagining things and manufacturing consensus based on models made out of toothpicks (I'd imagine...) with actual, observable evidence.

I'll read more about this* and post as I have time but it already reminds me of something else I've studied:

*Here's the best book I've read on it: (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False
David Ray Griffin) So if you "debunk" his logic and arguments, then you'll basically be successful with me too. Which I would be fine with... it took me long enough to change my mind on this one in the first place. I'd like to change it back again, probably help me be less cynical about things and so on too.

Why don't you pick a couple of things from the book that you find most compelling (no more than 3 at first) and post them here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is just totally unacceptable and would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
That you can say these things and keep a straight face is beyond me.

I think you need to cast your mind back to the events of that day, and the following few days. Planes had flown into buildings. Another building had caught on fire and later collapsed. Thousands were dead, their bodies buried under tons of debris, roads were blocked, many people were thought to be trapped in the rubble. It seemed quite obvious to everyone what just happened. For the vast majority of people the focus was on rescue, recovery, and clean up. Tagging which bit of steel came from where was simply not a priority.

Think back to that day. Who exactly would have given the order for tagging, and why would they have given it, and who would have done the tagging, and when?

Is it really that incredible that the tagging was not done?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you pick a couple of things from the book that you find most compelling (no more than 3 at first) and post them here.

Or just one to start with. What is the most irrefutably false thing that Griffin finds in the NIST report?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.

But you are not going to read that are you?

I had already read the FAQ that you linked to.

So what was Barry Jennings talking about when he reported an explosion and being blasted backward and so forth? (If only he could have built himself a little model out of toothpicks and donuts there and then, maybe he could have denied what happened based on imagining that it hadn't just happened. It's all just symbolic and modeling things, until it isn't.)

I can research this on my own but who, exactly, is responsible for the """"NIST"""" report? (I would note that, in the end... "I was only following orders." or "I was just a part of a bureaucratic system." may not cut it for those who collaborated to create these types of reports. It depends on what people think may happen within their lifespans, I guess. Because some of this stuff is apparently set to be declassified around 2030, as I recall. I'm just going off of memory, though.)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Why don't you pick a couple of things from the book that you find most compelling (no more than 3 at first) and post them here.

Yeah, I will. To be honest, I'm only here when I'm at the office making money and waiting on stuff and all my books are at home, etc. But I'll try to set aside some time and do that at some point. It would be interesting if you could debunk it, seems like a pretty solid case to me. But I could be wrong.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Who exactly would have given the order for tagging, and why would they have given it, and who would have done the tagging, and when?
Every one a great question.

Especially when no-one at that time had any idea how long their involvement might have been, and where it might have been leading them.

It must have seemed endless until it dawned on them it had really ended, and was not just the opening move of a greater war.

IMO and in this context, tagging was possibly the very least of any priorities.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Or just one to start with. What is the most irrefutably false thing that Griffin finds in the NIST report?

You'd have to ask him what he thinks but I found his analysis of NIST's apparent attempts to get fires burning like furnaces for a long enough period of time to have the results that they seem intent on imagining/simulating compelling. Thus my satire of the exploding donuts and so forth...

I would note that if Muslim terrists had flown a third plane into WTC 7 instead of it winding up in a field in PA that explaining the collapse of WTC 7 wouldn't have to include great feats of imagination/simulation. But that's just my own way of imagining thing.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I had already read the FAQ that you linked to.

So what was Barry Jennings talking about when he reported an explosion and being blasted backward and so forth? (If only he could have built himself a little model out of toothpicks and donuts there and then, maybe he could have denied what happened based on imagining that it hadn't just happened. It's all just symbolic and modeling things, until it isn't.)

I can research this on my own but who, exactly, is responsible for the """"NIST"""" report? (I would note that, in the end... "I was only following orders." or "I was just a part of a bureaucratic system." may not cut it for those who collaborated to create these types of reports. It depends on what people think may happen within their lifespans, I guess. Because some of this stuff is apparently set to be declassified around 2030, as I recall. I'm just going off of memory, though.)

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

17. An emergency responder caught in WTC 7 between the 6th and 8th floors said he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building.

Content from External Source
While I'm not a demolition expert I've never seen a demolition video where stuff explodes and there is enough time for someone to leave the building that was being demo'd. Have you read the NIST report?

As to who is behind the NIST report:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Contact: Michael E. Newman, michael.newman@nist.gov, 301-975-3025
September 19, 2011 (updated 6/27/12)
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You'd have to ask him what he thinks but I found his analysis of NIST's apparent attempts to get fires burning like furnaces for a long enough period of time to have the results that they seem intent on imagining/simulating compelling. Thus my satire of the exploding donuts and so forth...

I'd suggest that he wrote it with "compelling" as the goal.

But what we are concerned with is accuracy, not skill in rhetoric. Can you point to some precise points that he claims NIST got wrong? Preferably something with numbers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's funny coming from someone defending an official government institution displaying gross investigatory inaccuracy.

Which you can't seem to point out beyond "they did not test for explosives, therefore everything is invalid". You should really put that in your sig, so you won't have to repeat it every single post.

If the NIST report is irrelevant, then why is Griffin spending all this time trying to poke holes in it? Do you think any of his criticisms have merit?
 

hiper

Active Member
Which you can't seem to point out beyond "they did not test for explosives, therefore everything is invalid". You should really put that in your sig, so you won't have to repeat it every single post.

Mick... the people at NIST themselves after much gymnastics admitted free-fall was in play for at least part of the collapse of WTC7.
Free-fall means zero structural resistance.
Fires possibly weakening local parts of the steel structure can't be responsible for sudden total structural failure no matter how much pimped 3D models NIST produces.
There had to be other forces at play responsible for the sudden total failure of the building's structural integrity.


If the NIST report is irrelevant, then why is Griffin spending all this time trying to poke holes in it? Do you think any of his criticisms have merit?

He is spending all his time because it is the official report by the official government institution charged with the investigation.
And he is not poking holes in it he is pointing to the fact the official explanation already had holes in it from the get go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top