"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I suppose that's what one would have to imagine. Although, it is curious that what was observed was a descent that reached free fall speeds. So it would seem that even those imaginary impacts on the next floor down didn't do much after our simulation/imagination of a "progressive collapse" begins. (This is where Mick's soda can comes in, I'd imagine. Imagining things is usually fun... that's why I do it all the time. But then it's time for Occam's razor to trim back the bunk, too.)

That IS where the can comes in. The exterior of the building is like walls of the can. The exterior of the building is supporting thousands of tons of static load, several times its own weight. The can is supporting 150 pounds, yet it weighs only 0.03 pounds. It's supporting 5,000 times its own weight as a static load. (The difference in ratios here is to do with the square-cube law, which is what makes scale demonstrations difficult). But once it buckles, its ability to support drops to a tiny tiny fraction of this, near zero, so I fall at essentially free fall acceleration.

That's a lot of imaginary buckling. Maybe it's so. Did they save all the buckled steel and investigate how it buckled so that the incompetent engineers that built it (who apparently needed "just a bit of knowledge") wouldn't design a building that way again?
There was plenty of buckled steel, but no real need to learn more about buckling, as that has been very well understood for many years. If it's not straight and square, then it's not strong. So keep it straight and square.

 
Last edited:

mynym

Banned
Banned
Apologies, I can't watch the video where I am.

That's too bad. Maybe when you get back you could look up the thread. I also included some text and links to the guy most responsible for getting NIST to conform its unfalsifiable forms of pseudo-science and changing hypotheses closer to the evidence.

I don't know where the plane was going? Is it relevant to how WTC7 fell?

It's a side issue as to which surrounding conspiracy theory has more explanatory power to all the events of the day. As far as to how WTC 7 fell, I'm not sure why the officials involved in creating the official story couldn't just say that they demolished it on purpose for the sake of national security. There again, then everyone would want to see the documents and contracts as far as who wired it and why there was an unknown policy about demolishing government buildings if they couldn't be secured and so forth. So I guess they really would have to just deny it, even if they did it.

I don't trust the dogs, and I work with them. Do you?

I trust some dogs more than I trust many people.

A little pff-topic perhaps?

Perhaps. Although it might help people to use their imaginations outside of official/Masonic narratives. And imagination is a powerful thing, imagine that...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well that does look impressive with all the different colours etc but let's look at what damage was actually done.

Green. No visible damage. Ok, just because it is not visible does not preclude it's existence but is it likely?

Red for danger = 'Possible' structural damage. A very small area. Even if that area were to collapse, it should be localised and not a uniform instant collapse of the whole.

Yellow = Windows broken. A large area in the diagram which is not borne out by photographic evidence.

Blue = Not visible. Not sure exactly what this means but anyway, the blue and yellow and green account for the vast majority of the diagram and under no reasonable rationale can they be considered as structurally damaged from that diagram.

Yes, the point here is that some debris hit, and there was some damage. Nobody said it was catastrophic. Just enough to:

A) Start some fires, which burned for hours, eventually triggering a collapse.
B) Damage the exterior structure in the SW corner, which affected the symmetry of the collapse.
C) Shake up some people in the building so much they thought a bomb had gone off.



Where is the absolutely massive steel core in this pic which should have survived? Why should the much weaker perimeter survive whilst the centre evaporates?


That's a photo of WTC6 and WTC1, and yet we are talking about WTC7. So I'm not sure what your point is.

No fires or collapse here despite the blown out windows:


So?



Damage Claims Versus Symmetric Collapse

Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.

http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html


That damage was on the west, the fire collapse started in the east, in a very asymmetric collapse. When the skin started to collapse in the east (the "kink") the damage in the west meant that it spread to that side very quickly, because the collapse in the west put a huge amount of immediate stress on the east.
 
Last edited:

mynym

Banned
Banned
There was plenty of buckled steel, but no real need to learn more about buckling...

Fair enough, your theory may have some explanatory power... not enough to overcome all the evidence that I've read about surrounding the entire event but perhaps it has some.

I'm not sure why NIST felt the need to deny free fall originally if it's ultimately that easy to explain, though.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not sure why NIST felt the need to deny free fall originally if it's ultimately that easy to explain, though.

Because initially they just measured the time it took for the building to fall. i.e. the time between the roofline starting to fall to the time it vanished from view. They then calculated the acceleration from the distance and the time.

So that just gives you an average acceleration, which was less than free fall.

Later, in the more detailed study, it was broken down in more detail, looking at the video frame by frame, and they found that first there was lots of resistance then very little, then more again. So there was a portion where the fall was effectively free fall, bracket by portions when it was much less than free fall.

So there was no contradiction at all. Just a change in the level of detail. The acceleration of the roofline of a falling building is never a constant.
 

hiper

Active Member
Just take a good sober look at this picture from NIST and try not to laugh...
It's no wonder they refuse to release the input data of this monstrosity.

300px-NIST_7_WTC_Exterior_buckling.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just take a good sober look at this picture from NIST and try not to laugh...
It's no wonder they refuse to release the input data of this monstrosity.

View attachment 3120

You know that's the simulation WITHOUT impact damage, right? The one that Richard Gage likes to to show.

Without impact damage, the exterior skin is much stronger around the base, so the buckling happens from higher up.

Here's the actual simulation that incorporates the observed damage:



and here I've put them side by side, so you can see the difference the damage causes:



And here's Richard Gage (who owns AE911) lying:

 
Last edited:

hiper

Active Member
It clearly has cost NIST blood, sweat and tears to make fire the cause of WTC 7's collapse...

It shows in the years and years they needed to come up with the report, it shows in their 3d modeling, it shows in that they won't release the parameters of their model, it shows in them not investigating
the physical evidence, it shows in them going into hiding after their final report...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It clearly has cost NIST blood, sweat and tears to make fire the cause of WTC 7's collapse...

Not really. It was obvious to everyone there that fire caused the collapse, possibly combined with impact damage.

The long investigation was simply to find out exactly what happened, so lessons could be learned about improving building safety.
 

hiper

Active Member
Mick I suspect you know WTC 7 was a controlled demolition but for some reason I don't know you do your best to defend the official government explanation.
I sense there is more to you than meets the eye.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick I suspect you know WTC 7 was a controlled demolition but for some reason I don't know you do your best to defend the official government explanation.
I sense there is more to you than meets the eye.

There's not (at least not in the sense you mean). I'm not anonymous. You can look me up.

My interest is in debunking. It's about finding things that are wrong (bunk) and exposing and correcting them. That's it. It's my hobby.

For example, you posted an image that looked nothing like the WTC7 collapse, and you mocked it. I corrected it, and explained how the confusion arose. That's what debunking is.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Why would he 'know' it was a controlled demolition?

It doesn't fit any the parameters of one, except to those that chose to ignore the science.

I will ask again these few questions.

1) When were the charges set and columns weakened?

2) Who did this? Controlled demolition is not a commonly taught skill?

3) How were the charges protected from the fires?

Without a reasonable answer and one that has some evidence for it, the 'controlled demo' theory falls FLAT on it's face.
 

hiper

Active Member
For example, you posted an image that looked nothing like the WTC7 collapse, and you mocked it. I corrected it, and explained how the confusion arose. That's what debunking is.

With or without impact damage the 3D model looks pimped and manipulated.

Without a reasonable answer and one that has some evidence for it, the 'controlled demo' theory falls FLAT on it's face.

Very funny... you're defending an institution that ignored investigating the physical evidence but that seems no problem...
I on the other hand am to present serious evidence or else my view falls flat on it's face.

I would stop talking if I were you.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Not at all. My imaginary scenario is that people went into the building and set more fires after the initial explosions and so forth that Barry Jennings reported. But that's just me. And I'm probably imagining things based on evidence that you probably know nothing about. Imagine that.

So you think that what they had planned for WTC7 did not work, so people had to run in and set more fires? Or do you think that it was planned that part of the WTC 1 and 2 hit WTC7, and people were waiting to start more fires if that wasn't enough? Do you see how complicated your scenario is?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
And here's Richard Gage (who owns AE911) lying:

Looks like you may be spreading misinformation, even a cursory examination of the way your source edited his video together shows Gage talking in front of a slide with this highlighted in red: (without WTC 1 debris damage). So it would seem that he wasn't going to great lengths to hide which simulation he was talking about or "lie."
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Looks like you may be spreading misinformation, even a cursory examination of the way your source edited his video together shows Gage talking in front of a slide with this highlighted in red: (without WTC 1 debris damage). So it would seem that he wasn't going to great lengths to hide which simulation he was talking about or "lie."

So how does that explain what he actually says? If anything that makes it worse. He should know that it's the wrong video, and yet he still goes on about how it looks nothing like the actual collapse.
 

hiper

Active Member
What do you think of Gage's misuse of the no-damage simulation?

Funny... NIST from a scientific point gives people who expect a genuine investigation the finger but Mick just looks the other way...
yet when Gage 'misuses' a 3D model he faces a wrath of god style pointy finger.

You're a great gymnast I'll give you that.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Hiper I am not defending any group. I am LOOKING at the FACTS and the reasonability of a controlled demolition.

I notice that you attack me and Mick, instead of offering answers to my questions. Does that mean that you can't answer them? with any evidence?

It seems that I am not the one that should stop 'digging a hole'. I have facts and science to back be up.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Funny... NIST from a scientific point gives people who expect a genuine investigation the finger but Mick just looks the other way...
yet when Gage 'misuses' a 3D model he faces a wrath of god style pointy finger.

Are you saying that because you think that NIST lied, then it's also okay for Gage to lie?
 

hiper

Active Member
Hiper I am not defending any group. I am LOOKING at the FACTS and the reason ability of a controlled demolition.

Please Cairenn stop it.
Every scientist on the planet including NIST's knows that if one is to scientifically investigate the WTC 7 collapse one has to investigate the steel and do a trace chemical analysis of the dust.
If one is to skip investigating the physical evidence how on earth could the conclusions be anything other than speculation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If one is to skip investigating the physical evidence how on earth could the conclusions be anything other than speculation.

Have you read NCSTAR 1-9? It's got a lot of very detailed analysis.

Earlier I posted an image of piece of steel that had failed.



Now what tests should be conducted upon this piece of steel?
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
EVERY scientist? REALLY ? Where is your evidence of that ?

One does not test a body for cyanide and ricin and other poisons, if the OBVIOUS cause of death is a gunshot and if there is NO reasonable evidence that they had ever been exposed to the poisons.

And yet another attack. And you are still not offering any evidence to support your theory.
 

hiper

Active Member
Are you saying that because you think that NIST lied, then it's also okay for Gage to lie?

Mick Gage is suspecting government involvement in 9/11. In other words it's David vs Goliath. You giving David a reprimand makes you look kinda weird.
 

hiper

Active Member
EVERY scientist? REALLY ? Where is your evidence of that ?

If one is to investigate a crime of this magnitude one follows the scientific method and one investigates the physical evidence. I am confident every self respecting scientist will agree with me.
NIST skipped investigating the physical evidence.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
They did. Where is the evidence that EVERY scientist would agree with you? You think is NOT evidence. Where are ALL of their comments?

It seems that you are lacking in any evidence other than your personal opinion. I have talked to scientists about it, and none of them have ever 'agreed' with your idea.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick Gage is suspecting government involvement in 9/11. In other words it's David vs Goliath. You giving David a reprimand makes you look kinda weird.

But what do you think about it? Are you saying he should be given a free pass?

You used the wrong image too. Probably as a direct result of Gage's use.

My interest here is in debunking. If something is wrong, then I'll point it out, regardless of who said it.

If there was something wrong in the NIST report, then I'd point that out to. I'd be very happy if you could point out something wrong in it.

And, we already know you think it's all wrong because they did not do the right tests. I'm asking you if there's anything ELSE wrong with it.
 

hiper

Active Member
If there was something wrong in the NIST report, then I'd point that out to. I'd be very happy if you could point out something wrong in it.

And, we already know you think it's all wrong because they did not do the right tests. I'm asking you if there's anything ELSE wrong with it.

You are loosing your consistency.
On one hand you try to appear open to any flaw there may be in the NIST report and on the other you turn a blind eye to NIST not investigating the physical evidence.
The investigation of physical evidence is not open to speculation... by skipping this NIST paved the way to produce a report they had full control over.

You can't have both Mick... these gymnastics of yours are becoming unbearable to watch.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You are loosing your consistency.
On one hand you try to appear open to any flaw there may be in the NIST report and on the other you turn a blind eye to NIST not investigating the physical evidence.
The investigation of physical evidence is not open to speculation... by skipping this NIST paved the way to produce a report they had full control over.

You can't have both Mick... these gymnastics of yours are becoming unbearable to watch.

It's really a lot simpler that you make out. I don't think there was a good reason to test for explosive residue, but you do. You think it's significant that no steel was available to test (for something), but I don't.

Now we can argue over those points. However you are ALSO using that as an excuse to entirely ignore the vast amount of other evidence that points to the fire causing a collapse.

I'm not doing any gymnastics here. It's very straightforward. Simply saying "na na na meaningless without residue tests!!!" is not an argument. Even Gage goes in and tries to make a case based on the known evidence.
 

hiper

Active Member
It's really a lot simpler that you make out. I don't think there was a good reason to test for explosive residue, but you do. You think it's significant that no steel was available to test (for something), but I don't.

You are talking about the remaining physical evidence from the terrorist crime of the century.

Now we can argue over those points. However you are ALSO using that as an excuse to entirely ignore the vast amount of other evidence that points to the fire causing a collapse.

I give weight to physical evidence... you give weight to the opposite namely speculation what went on in a building that totally collapsed.

I'm not doing any gymnastics here. It's very straightforward. Simply saying "na na na meaningless without residue tests!!!" is not an argument. Even Gage goes in and tries to make a case based on the known evidence.

If you want to engage in an honest conversation you have to choose... you can't pretend to be open to criticism about NIST's report and turn a blind eye to NIST blatant disregard of the physical evidence.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you want to engage in an honest conversation you have to choose... you can't pretend to be open to criticism about NIST's report and turn a blind eye to NIST blatant disregard of the physical evidence.

I think you've made that point already.

Now what? You avoid any further discussion until I agree that further discussion is pointless?

You are not even going to attempt to make any arguments as to why it could not have been fire?

Are you seriously going to use "they did not test for explosives" as your sole reason for believing it could not have been a collapse by fire?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Every scientist on the planet including NIST's knows that if one is to scientifically investigate the WTC 7 collapse one has to investigate the steel and do a trace chemical analysis of the dust.
If one is to skip investigating the physical evidence how on earth could the conclusions be anything other than speculation.

Perhaps you're right. It seems obvious, and most specialists agree the building collapsed because of uncontrolled fires, but maybe they should have tested the dust for explosive residue.

Boston-Bombing_2537157b.jpg

Just like the Boston bombings. It seems obvious, and most specialists agree these people died of shrapnel wounds. But perhaps the cause of death was cyanide poisoning. Where any of the victims tested for poisoning? As you said, if one is to skip investigating the physical evidence how on earth could the conclusions be anything other than speculation.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You are talking about the remaining physical evidence from the terrorist crime of the century.
I give weight to physical evidence... you give weight to the opposite namely speculation what went on in a building that totally collapsed.
If you want to engage in an honest conversation you have to choose... you can't pretend to be open to criticism about NIST's report and turn a blind eye to NIST blatant disregard of the physical evidence.

But NIST didn't do physical tests. Yes they should have. Yes it is appalling that they didn't but it is a fact. Now there is only so much mileage from continually repeating that. Mick can do nothing about it. He has stated before that he wishes they had.

Really it is pointless keep bringing it up because nothing will change in that regard by simply repeating it.

If there is any chance whatsoever of getting a new inquiry, (I think it highly unlikely), it will be by bringing evidence which contradicts NIST.

You believe it was an inside job and so do I but the U.S continually protects it's military and police etc from diabolical crimes and states they did nothing wrong, so they are hardly likely to give up a former president or high ranking politicians.

Most people are brainwashed by the continual war mongering propaganda which they used/use to justify their wars. The creation of 'Boogymen' in the form of a never ending axis of evil fanatical terrorists who are crazed and jealous of the 'freedoms of the U.S and want to enforce Islamic religion on them. And the west has been largely pressured into going along with it.

They attacked Afghanistan a month after 9/11 even though not one hijacker was an Afghan and even though the Taliban said they would help in the fight against terrorism. They did the same thing to Iraq a couple of years later even though Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda and in fact were enemies of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Powerful people made all this happen and powerful people were against a proper investigation of 9/11.

You will not get anywhere by keeping on repeating 'NIST didn't do any physical tests', most people already know that and almost certainly anyone reading this thread knows it. Mick and the debunkers do not have a problem with that, they say it time and time again and will not change their view.

I think you need to branch out and explore other aspects.

Sorry but that is what I think and I hope you take it in the spirit it was given.

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
But none of you 'inside guys' can offer a reasonable answer to my 3 questions. I wonder WHY ?

Answer them with something that makes sense.
 

hiper

Active Member
You are not even going to attempt to make any arguments as to why it could not have been fire?

The chance that fire could bring down a building in this way is remote.
This also happening on 9/11 makes this chance substantially remote.
Add to this NIST's investigatory behavior and you have found the reason why I am such a skeptic.

But NIST didn't do physical tests. Yes they should have. Yes it is appalling that they didn't but it is a fact. Now there is only so much mileage from continually repeating that. Mick can do nothing about it. He has stated before that he wishes they had.

Really it is pointless keep bringing it up because nothing will change in that regard by simply repeating it.

There are reasons why I have been repeating this ad nauseum which are not pointless.
One is obviously that the physical evidence is the only thing that is left that would not be open to speculation when investigated.
Another reason for me pushing this to this point is to show Mick is not really interested in an honest conversation... if he was he would by now have at least cautiously admitted that NIST for certain parts of the investigation was in serious neglect. Up until this indeed nauseating point he just keeps shrugging off these things as unimportant foot notes.. and this is not credible.

My continued hammering on this issue stems from my refusal to continue this discussion until Mick at least acknowledges that he can't keep pretending everything is OK regarding WTC 7.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I trust some dogs more than I trust many people.

yes but search dogs are just tools like metal detectors. Just because a metal detector indicates at the airport, it does not immediateley suggest a weapon. Same with the dogs, they simply identify something, but in terms of explosives it still must be confirmed by normal means.

Perhaps. Although it might help people to use their imaginations outside of official/Masonic narratives. And imagination is a powerful thing, imagine that...

Imagination is indeed powerful among the CT community.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
If one is to investigate a crime of this magnitude one follows the scientific method and one investigates the physical evidence. I am confident every self respecting scientist will agree with me.
NIST skipped investigating the physical evidence.

Again, should they have tested for salt corrosion? Concrete cancer? Termites? Dry rot? Damp?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Please Cairenn stop it.
Every scientist on the planet including NIST's knows that if one is to scientifically investigate the WTC 7 collapse one has to investigate the steel and do a trace chemical analysis of the dust.
If one is to skip investigating the physical evidence how on earth could the conclusions be anything other than speculation.
That's not logical.

Everyone knows that WTC7 would have been perfectly all right had not WTC1 struck it, and the ensuing damage and fire and the fire service's inability to be fight that fire, sprang directly from that impact.

One would have to produce some evidence. Evidence better than primer paint and steel grindings, when the topic involves the collapse of a quarter of a million tons of primed steelwork.

And first one would have to argue through the NIST collapse physics and timeline findings. Successfully, with something better than lies and distractions.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
The chance that fire could bring down a building in this way is remote.
This also happening on 9/11 makes this chance substantially remote.

Got any maths to go with that, or just an empty assertion?

You know, the chances of the Titanic hitting an iceburg and sinking in that way is just too remote. This happening on it's maiden voyage makes this chance substancially remote. See? Empty assertion based upon no examination of any kind.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Why would he 'know' it was a controlled demolition?

Because that would have "obvious" precedent, while imagining or simulating things about fires and working to create the best explanations and simulations that money can buy with that "obvious" conclusion in mind might generate a lot of B$.

It doesn't fit any the parameters of one, except to those that chose to ignore the science.

You seem to be confusing pseudo-science with science.

I will ask again these few questions.

1) When were the charges set and columns weakened?

In the "perceptions are reality" world of modern magicians who trace their "top secret" roots back to the alchemists and astrologers of old, it doesn't matter when. If they can build numerous buildings throughout the ages that encrypt their beliefs, I'd imagine that they could manage to bring the "Two Towers" down also. Metaphorically speaking, you seem to be feeling that birds of prey are thinking like the lemmings below think. Anyway, as the 911 Commissioner Bob Kerry said the whole event was a "30 year conspiracy":

So that would mean that the conspirators would have had plenty of time. I find it amusing that the first thing people seem to imagine is low level and compartmentalized Israeli patsies running into the building on the day of 9/11 to set bombs. It's more likely that the reason that they were driving around with trucks with murals of the towers being hit painted on the side of them and so forth is to #1: hopefully to trade on their low level inside knowledge of the event to frame Palestinians and promote Zionism or #2: act as the patsies and Jewish scapegoats they could have ultimately been used as.

Imagine this, a collateralize debt obligation in a pyramidal flow chart. At the bottom there's the junk which is high risk (patsies), middle is less risky (handlers)... and at the very top, you'll find those that are too big to fail (the type of people that create money from nothing, etc.)... and they bear almost zero risk and are surrounded by layers of plausible deniability in a joint operation like 911. That's how you know that a guy left to read about pet goats wasn't close to the top. And here he thought he was in the skull and bones (pirates = privateers and mercenaries... duh), etc.
2) Who did this? Controlled demolition is not a commonly taught skill?

Who decided to build a bank at 33rd Liberty Street, encrypted 33 into the symbol for the U.N., built D.C. in order to reflect their beliefs and so forth?



I'd imagine that if people could manage to build buildings and so forth to reflect their "top secret" beliefs and so forth without many people noticing, that the same type of conspirators could also bring them down.

Without a reasonable answer and one that has some evidence for it, the 'controlled demo' theory falls FLAT on it's face.

The evidence of conspiracy lies all around you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top