hiper
Active Member
Secondly,
Thirdly,
Please read the locked WTC7 thread.
Secondly,
Thirdly,
Perhaps you could start by pointing out (quoting) something wrong in the NIST report regarding the fires and collapse in WTC7?
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.
How does one carry 4,000 in their shoe?
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?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.
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.
Secondly, how would perpetrators of such an event fireproof their explosive charges?
Thirdly, why is structural collapse due to weakened steel so absurd to you?
Gary Martin of Cambs Police, said: "We have a number of theories and we're not resting on any particular one.
[TABLE="width: 203, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD]FM reception in parts of several counties has been affected![]()
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
"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?
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?
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.
You also mention free fall speed of the collapse. In fact it was 40% longer than free fall speed.External Quote: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.
You should read the FAQ and then discuss an issue you have a problem with.External Quote: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:
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.
- 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
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...
Which is the immediate aftermath of a slender column buckling collapse. Such collapses are silent. Did you witness any explosions?I see a roof line falling straight down at what seem to be free fall speeds.
That is NOT what the NIST Report says.The reason that the hypothesis of structural collapse due to "weakened steel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling#Flutter_instabilityExternal Quote: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.
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.what seem to be free fall speeds.
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?
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.
You also mention free fall speed of the collapse. In fact it was 40% longer than free fall speed.
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."This is consistent with the structural analysis model...
Whoever it was, it was somebody who knew what they were talking about.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?
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.
There is a name for it: science, and, thinking about it, actually they were models based on real events.It seems to me like they wouldn't have to create models based on imaginary events
Hey, they did.if they began with the most likely hypothesis.
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
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?
Which is the immediate aftermath of a slender column buckling collapse.
Such collapses are silent.
Did you witness any explosions?
A relatively symmetrical collapse at free fall speeds (NIST = bunk on that point, I'd imagine.) is common?
No explosive noises...
...and no evidence of the massive preparation required.
I reckon they saw WTC1 strike WTC7.
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 is a name for it: science, and, thinking about it, actually they were models based on real events.
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?
But you are not going to read that are you? I think you are trolling.External Quote: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.
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.
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.
But you are not going to read the NIST report either are you?External Quote: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.
Whoever it was, it was somebody who knew what they were talking about.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Roughly? LOLI'd say the odds were about 1 in 1.
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?
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.
Every one a great question.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?
Or just one to start with. What is the most irrefutably false thing that Griffin finds in the NIST report?
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.)
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?External Quote: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.
External Quote: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)
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...
But what we are concerned with is accuracy, not skill in rhetoric.
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?