Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything

[Oxymoron]

Why was it necessary for conspirator's plan that the buildings had to collapse?

Had they survived without collapsing, do you think it remotely likely that they would have been restored?

Is it not reasonable to suggest that the buildings would have been condemned like the Deutchebank building and then demolished later?

Don't you think the spectacle of the planes crashing into the buildings was enough to persuade the masses into revenge, or do you think it just would have been insufficiently cinematic without a total collapse?

If I were a conspirator, why would I choose to add an extra several layers of complexity to an already complex-beyond-reason-plan, and the layers are the ones most likely to be discovered? Why would I choose to increase the risk of discovery or failure by doing that?

Take me through the conspiracy, step by step...

The thread is 'Does NIST not testing for explosives or testing the steel, invalidate everything, so the questions you pose, and which have been discussed on other threads on this site, are off topic on this thread.

As to if these facts invalidate everything, I would suggest that is a bit strong but certainly it leaves many questions concerning the validity of the investigation and it's conclusions.

Ok, you are happy with the way it was handled but many are not.

 

[Oxymoron]

Kind of butting heads here.

Well I suppose the only other thing to do is chalk it up as a difference of opinion

Let's step slightly to the side. Ignore the question of if testing for explosives actually was necessary. Do you think that people at NIST thought that testing for explosives was necessary? Do you think they even considered it?

Good argument.

I think they must have considered it. Not only that, they must have considered the implications of 'not testing'. I suggest it was no lightly taken decision.

 

[Mick West]

I think they must have considered it. Not only that, they must have considered the implications of 'not testing'. I suggest it was no lightly taken decision.

What were the implication? And what reason do you think they used to make the decision? Do you think they made the decision not to test for dust independent of the PTB? You think the PTB just got lucky there?

 

[Oxymoron]

What were the implication?

They knew full well there would be strident and persistent criticism that they should have tested and 'it is suspicious that they didn't'. It was an issue right from the outset.

How much would it have cost to cover all the bases?

How much effort would it have been?

Both would have been minimal and the benefit would have been in being able to say, 'we did it by the book... 'it was a thorough investigation'... 'there was no cover up'.

And what reason do you think they used to make the decision? Do you think they made the decision not to test for dust independent of the PTB? You think the PTB just got lucky there?

To me, it is so irrational that they didn't test, that I can only conclude the decision came from TPTB.

 

[BombDr]

The thread is 'Does NIST not testing for explosives or testing the steel, invalidate everything, so the questions you pose, and which have been discussed on other threads on this site, are off topic on this thread.

As to if these facts invalidate everything, I would suggest that is a bit strong but certainly it leaves many questions concerning the validity of the investigation and it's conclusions.

Ok, you are happy with the way it was handled but many are not.

Is it really off-topic? If you believe the building were destroyed by explosives, then there must have been a reason to believe that.

Apart from the lack of physical evidence, what is the tactical or strategic advantage to the conspirators that would cause them to go to all that trouble, and risk?

I might be more persuaded to look for explosives if I knew what the motive was.

 

[Jazzy]

I might be more persuaded to look for explosives if I knew what the motive was.

Surely the whole point is THERE COULD BE NO MOTIVE.

The reasons WTC 1 fell on to WTC 7 were HAPPENSTANCE: the planes struck willy-nilly, the columns were struck willy-nilly, to a certain extent the fires burnt willy-nilly, and the collapse failures occurred and developed willy-nilly.

Finally, the wind direction was also a variable. It was quite possible for the pilots to have chosen which faces of the tower to attack according with the wind direction of the day, and for them to have been different faces.

Events that occur as natural consequences of other randomly-picked or randomly-occurring events cannot possibly have a MOTIVE ascribed to them.

And without motive there is indeed no reason to search for explosives, and certainly no need to sample the steel.

They knew what the steel was made of. The information was in the architect's files.

[...]

 

[Grieves]

The reasons WTC 1 fell on to WTC 7 were HAPPENSTANCE: the planes struck willy-nilly,

'Willy-nilly'? What in the world are you talking about? The attack wasn't 'willy-nilly', it was a carefully planned operation with chosen targets, regardless of who you believe was behind it. 'Willy-nilly' doesn't apply in the slightest.

Events that occur as natural consequences of other randomly-picked or randomly-occurring events cannot possibly have a MOTIVE ascribed to them.

So 9/11 was a big old random accident..? The hell are you on about...?

Events that occur as natural consequences of other randomly-picked or randomly-occurring events cannot possibly have a MOTIVE ascribed to them.

And without motive there is indeed no reason to search for explosives, and certainly no need to sample the steel.

Yet another entirely circular argument, which depends on the assumption that the WTC 7 collapse was an entirely random event. That's a childish position to take in the context of this discussion, as our position is that WTC 7 wasn't a random event... what you're saying essentially amounts to "The WTC 7 collapse wasn't intentional because the WTC 7 collapse wasn't intentional, and a lack of any proof is the proof of that...! So there...!"

 

[Mick West]

'Willy-nilly'? What in the world are you talking about? The attack wasn't 'willy-nilly', it was a carefully planned operation with chosen targets, regardless of who you believe was behind it. 'Willy-nilly' doesn't apply in the slightest.

It applies to the floor they were hit on, the columns that were severed, the angle of impact, the speed of impact, the bank of the plane, the fuel dispersion, and even the number of towers that were successfully hit.

These were all things that could not have been predicted in advance, other than a rough range. So the actual outcome, and effect on surrounding buildings, was very much unknown.

Like, when you break in pool, you are not breaking willy-nilly - you've got some intent, hit the top ball, it it hard, at a bit of an angle, don't bounce the cue ball, but for all the intent the position the balls end up in (and if you successfully pot something off the break) is still pretty much random.

 

[Grieves]

It applies to the floor they were hit on,....the angle of impact, the speed of impact, the bank of the plane...and even the number of towers that were successfully hit.

All of these factors were either pre-determined by the plotters, or chosen by the pilots, with intent.

Definition of WILLY-NILLY

1
: by compulsion : without choice


2
: in a haphazard or spontaneous manner

Like, when you break in pool, you are not breaking willy-nilly - you've got some intent, hit the top ball, it it hard, at a bit of an angle, don't bounce the cue ball, but for all the intent the position the balls end up in (and if you successfully pot something off the break) is still pretty much random.

A standard break is hard to predict yes, but if you've arranged most all the balls on the table in a specific way, or compromised the table itself, a spectacular and seemingly spontaneous shot can be achieved over and over again, with little chance for failure. This is typically called a 'trickshot'. Many who see a trickshot and are most entertained by it think they're seeing chance at play, while a great deal of preparation and forethought was actually involved. The triple-collapse has always struck me as an example of a 'trickshot', in the guise of a 'lucky break'.

 

[Mick West]

All of these factors were either pre-determined by the plotters, or chosen by the pilots, with intent.

No they were not. That's physically impossible. The bank of the plane for example is a factor of aiming, last second corrections to hit the tower as close to center as possible. They might have decided to bank it more at the last second, but the actual angle would have been impossible to pre-determine.

The impact floor number would have been impossible to predetermine except within a fairly wide range.

And how would the pilot line up the engines with center columns that they could no even see?

A standard break is hard to predict yes, but if you've arranged most all the balls on the table in a specific way, or compromised the table itself, a spectacular and seemingly random shot can be achieved over and over again, with little chance for failure. This is typically called a 'trickshot'. Many who see a trickshot and are most entertained by it think they're seeing chance at play, while a great deal of preparation and forethought was actually involved. The triple-collapse has always struck me as an example of a 'tickshot', not a 'lucky break'.

Indeed, and it clearly strikes lots of people that way, which is why the theory persists. But the trick was simply hijacking a plane and flying it into the middle of a building. Exactly where it hit and what happened after that were just where the balls happened to end up.

They did not know if the buildings woudl collapse (but probably hoped they would). They did not know when they would collapse, or where exactly the debris would fall, or of it would structurally damage other buildings, or how it would damage those buildings, or which buildings would catch fire.

And certainly the hijackers never planned to bring down building 7, any more than you plan to pot three specific balls of the break. The balls just went in the pocket.

 

[Jazzy]

And the wind direction of the day modified the progression of the fires differently for each tower.

The first plane struck WTC1 downwind, almost dead center and the through draft through the exit hole helped the fire cause the internal columns to creep, transferring loads to the impact hole surrounds, causing it to fail in the direction of WTC7.

The other (upwind) strike piled up wreckage against the upwind SE tower corner. The internal columns were less affected, and the external columns on that face buckled almost in unison.

A slight change in wind direction would probably have altered EVERY single event.

 

[Grieves]

No they were not. That's physically impossible. The bank of the plane for example is a factor of aiming, last second corrections to hit the tower as close to center as possible. They might have decided to bank it more at the last second, but the actual angle would have been impossible to pre-determine.

The pilots chose where to hit. It's not at all unreasonable to suggest they'd discussed where to hit beforehand, even if this was just a pack of Jihadis. There would be no reason not to plan that, and that the planes both struck in generally similar locations is indicative of a plan. The pilots chose how fast they were going. Any last-second course corrections they chose to make.

And how would the pilot line up the engines with center columns that they could no even see?

assumes the pilots were targeting core-columns. I don't think they were.

But the trick was simply hijacking a plane and flying it into the middle of a building.

Hijacking two planes, and flying them into the upper-middle sections of two buildings, in succession, entirely unobstructed by US authorities/security at almost every stage. Nothing simple about it.

Exactly where it hit and what happened after that were just where the balls happened to end up.

Unless it wasn't, and the balls wound up almost exactly where they were supposed too... which would be a problem wouldn't it? Physical proof was available to remove all doubt surrounding the hands-down most mysterious aspect of the already baffling collapse of the two towers, that being the third collapse of WTC7. It was destroyed rather than examined. No action was taken in regard to that destruction, and we're told it's unfortunate, 'but not a big deal'. On that I have and will continue to call shenanigans. Get your damn brooms.

They did not know if the buildings woudl collapse (but probably hoped they would).

unless they did, which would be a problem, wouldn't it?

And certainly the hijackers never planned to bring down building 7, any more than you plan to pot three specific balls of the break. The balls just went in the pocket.

I'd agree the Hijackers definitely wouldn't have been responsible for planning the collapse of building 7. That doesn't mean the collapse of building 7 wasn't planned. There was conclusive physical evidence available to the authorities that would have proven it, one way or the other. Either they find the beam that failed due to fire, or they find the beam/s that were compromised intentionally. A few million dollars, a few weeks/months of work, and the question would have been put to rest.

The triple collapse was highly uncanny. To deny that is to willfully forget the reality faced that day. The apparently intentional shift of the national narrative right from the earliest days of the aftermath from 'highly uncanny and demanding thorough explanation' to 'don't worry about it, we're sure it was just fire, lets all do our best to move on with our lives, and by that we mean end those of a bunch of random middle-easterners.' was suspect. The refusal to grant broad powers to investigative teams in exploring the actions of failed authorities that day was suspect. The refusal to pursue the financial aspects of the crimes committed that day was suspect. The refusal of Bush and Cheney to answer questions separately/on the record was suspect. The gross underfunding and limited support of the investigative effort was suspect. The 'canary-in-a-coalmine' treatment of first responders was shameful to a high degree. You've heard it all before, it's all been said before, and I know a few folks here actually don't deny most of that, and just differ with me first on what it could mean, and second what should be done. I think it could mean a broader crime was taking place that day than Kamikaze-Jihadis, you don't. I think the uncanny events and these suspect/shameful behaviors warrant a more thorough investigation and a level of accountability that would see those involved punished for their failures, if not their crimes. You don't seem to agree with me on that either. It's this latter difference of opinion that really confuses me.

 

[Mick West]

So you think they knew the exact floor, impact angle, and the exact angle of the wings?

Sure, then might have had a general target in mind (like "the middle"), they may well have hoped the buildings would collapse, but it is impossible for them to predict the exact nature of the damage the impact would cause. There are just too many variables.

The problem of coordinating the impact of the plane and the subsequent fire with pre-planted incendiaries that would cause the buildings to collapse, starting on the floors that were on fire, is simply glossed over in most alternative version of events.

Think about it. The buildings collapsed starting on the floors that were on fire, precisely where the plane hit.

 

[SR1419]

The pilots chose where to hit. It's not at all unreasonable to suggest they'd discussed where to hit beforehand...the planes both struck in generally similar locations is indicative of a plan. The pilots chose how fast they were going. Any last-second course corrections they chose to make.

There was nothing identical about the impacts. They occurred on different floors, in different areas, resulting in entirely and visibly different kinds of damage

Fascinating.

 

[Grieves]

Surely I don't have to point out to you the difference between 'generally similar' and 'identical'?

 

[Mick West]

Surely I don't have to point out to you the difference between 'generally similar' and 'identical'?

So what you are saying, if I might combine your two statements, is that

the planes both struck in generally similar locations ... on different floors, in different areas, resulting in entirely and visibly different kinds of damage

And you think they planned exactly it that way? Within a few feet?

 

[Grieves]

And you think they planned exactly it that way? Within a few feet?

No. I believe there could have been a plan to hit the general area of the buildings that would best explain the ensuing pre-determined collapse, but that absolute precision was neither required or expected, and would in fact prove detrimental to the presentation. I believe its possible that a demolition of some kind took place, perhaps in verinage style using an unconventional technology such as thermate/thermite. I believe it's entirely possible that enough devices could have been planted and concealed, that there were potential opportunities to do so, and these devices wouldn't necessarily have been without insulation against fire. I believe that if there was a 9/11 operation that went beyond OBL, to criminal factions perhaps with key positions in military/intelligence/administrations, that the WTC 7 collapse would be the one real fuck-up. I think it likely a more dramatic event was expected, such as far more extensive fires, to explain the instigation of the collapse, and when that failed to materialize, perhaps resulting in other slip-ups like the early reports of the collapse, desperate measures may have been taken to gloss over and conceal the mistake, such as exerting pressures to emphasize clean-up over investigation, and to turn attention away from building 7 in general. I'm not saying this all happened, I'm saying given the extraordinary nature of the triple collapse that it was worth investigating as a possibility from the start, especially when building 7 is considered, which the 9/11 commission was blatantly remiss and NIST obscenely late in doing.

The official explanation provided for the collapse of the two towers makes a fair degree of sense even as unnatural as the events seemed, I don't deny that. Its true as well that, when considering only those two collapses, the above presented scenario seems far-fetched, to the point that it might not even be worth considering. But there was a third collapse. It was HIGHLY suspect, and thus should have called the uniformity of the tower collapses into question- and did for many, many people. As I've said before, it seemed as though that initial shock and suspicion was smothered, suppressed, and then finally demonized through the media rather than openly addressed by authorities and investigators, alienating a large portion of the population and really instigating this 'us vs. them' mentality developing between 'truthers' and 'sheeple'; which is a huge problem, as this site frequently demonstrates, in finding any sort of consensus as citizens, which in turn impedes our ability to act as citizens in an age when we need more than ever to utilize what collective power we have over our governments.

 

[Mick West]

The official explanation provided for the collapse of the two towers makes a fair degree of sense even as unnatural as the events seemed, I don't deny that. Its true as well that, when considering only those two collapses, the above presented scenario seems far-fetched, to the point that it might not even be worth considering. But there was a third collapse. It was HIGHLY suspect, and thus should have called the uniformity of the tower collapses into question- and did for many, many people.

But what about the official explanation of WTC7? What doesn't make sense there?

I think a lot of people got caught up in believing there was something fishy about WTC7 before the official report came out, then they just continued with the same line of thought after. There's these huge sticking points (the subject of this thread), but if you can get past that then the report does really make an incredible amount of sense. You could even just restrict it to the analysis of the fire, the damage, and the collapse sequence, and at least end up with the conclusion: "that was a lot of fire".

The FULL report (53MB)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

Another thing I've been looking at that I think a lot of people overlook (besides the Penthouse collapse), is the views of the South side. Often obscured by smoke pouring from every window (which should tell you something), occasionally the smoke clears and you can see that pretty much the entire facade is damaged, every window is broken, and column 20 seems to be missing. I find it incredibly deceptive that people like AE911 just show the photos of the North side, and brush it off as some minor fires.

​

But this is what the truthers like to show, and what many in the community come to accept as the state of WTC pre-collapse:

I don't know where you are at with this, but I feel a lot of people have not really looked at all the evidence - and used the "they did not test ...." as an excuse not to look at that evidence.

 

[Grieves]

But what about the official explanation of WTC7? What doesn't make sense there?

A single beam-collapse taking out an entire building in record time is a bit of a stretch for me. The computer models, while an impressive bit of computer modeling, end the very moment before they get around to explaining the generally level collapse of the exterior walls. It offers a believable looking scenario for what we couldn't have possibly seen, and then ends before adequately explaining what we all did see, as in the whole exterior of the building coming down level in a hurry. It briefly demonstrates significant and seemingly gradual crumpling at the corners of the outer structure I've certainly not seen demonstrated in the footage, and then just ends. Rendering a complex interior collapse based on projection and hypothesis due to the initial collapse of the penthouse and then failing to demonstrate the resultant exterior collapse which was the matter of fact actually observed in detail and captured as evidence, and how the interior collapse coincides with the exterior, isn't all that helpful to me. That they didn't bother with that, but took the time to produce a fantasy-render of 'what probably woulda happened' if the building had escaped significant debris-damage but was still on fire in the exact same places to the exact same extent for some reason or another, and in that scenario an exterior collapse is rendered in somewhat more detail, is just plain irritating. The point of doing this 'alternate scenario', especially if it was so very exhaustive a process to produce these things, truly eludes me.

I think a lot of people got caught up in believing there was something fishy about WTC7 before the official report came out, then they just continued with the same line of thought after.

Possible. Six years is a very long time.

You could even just restrict it to the analysis of the fire, the damage, and the collapse sequence, and at least end up with the conclusion: "that was a lot of fire".

'That was a lot of fire.' Is a relative personal observation. You can conclude it, I can debate it, a proper investigation should endeavor to prove it, especially under such grave and suspect circumstances. There have been many images provided in other threads of skyscrapers on fire. A lot of fire.

Another thing I've been looking at that I think a lot of people overlook (besides the Penthouse collapse), is the views of the South side. Often obscured by smoke pouring from every window (which should tell you something) occasionally the smoke clears and you can see that pretty much the entire facade is damaged, every window is broken, and column 20 seems to be missing. I find it incredibly deceptive that people like AE911 just show the photos of the North side, and brush it off as some minor fires.

it tells me the fires were by no means raging, as not a single one of those windows featured in the south-side view shows even the faintest flicker of firelight, as is only evident in the north-side view. The lack of firelight and heavy, black smoke indicates any fires on the south side were going out/out already, the smoke likely being from low smolders.The actual visible flames aren't that extensive, and are more apparent where the damage from rubble isn't. What might be a missing column is interesting, but it's not what NIST claimed was responsible/played a significant role in the collapse, was it? The collapse, regardless of debris damage, was due to fire officially.

I don't know where you are at with this, but I feel a lot of people have not really looked at all the evidence - and used the "they did not test ...." as an excuse not to look at that evidence.

I feel a lot of people use this premise as an excuse to dismiss the obvious inadequacies surrounding the evidence they've been provided, and more importantly the evidence they haven't been provided.

 

[Oxymoron]

But what about the official explanation of WTC7? What doesn't make sense there?


But this is what the truthers like to show, and what many in the community come to accept as the state of WTC pre-collapse:

As that is the only actual fire in the pics you posted and the rest was smoke, I think that is good going.

The fires were piddling. I don't care how often you deny it... it is the truth.

And as for the post collapse pictures of molten steel etc that you keep saying... 'Oh if it was there, where are all the pictures?'... Well perhaps this may account for the lack of pictures:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html

[h=1]Access Restrictions[/h] [h=2]The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators[/h] While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. 1 ​ The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation: 2 ​

• The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
• FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
• The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
• "The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

[h=3]No Photographs![/h] On September 26th, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani banned photographs of Ground Zero. 6 ​ An account by an anonymous photographer (AP), who took the photographs at the end of the Ground Zero photographs page, describes the treatment of this citizen investigator.
At the end of this return walk a NYC police officer asked to be shown authorization for taking photographs. AP said there was none. The officer asked how access to the site was gained. AP said I just walked in. Other police officers were consulted, several said this is a crime scene, no photographs allowed.

A NYC police captain was consulted who directed that AP be escorted from the site but that the digital photos need not be confiscated. The captain advised AP to apply for an official permit to photograph the site.

A NYC police officer took AP to New York State police officers nearby who asked to examine the digital camera and view the photographs. Without telling AP, who was being questioned by a State police officer, the photographs were deleted from the camera's compact flash memory chip by another State police officer.

AP was then escorted to the perimeter of the site by yet another NYC police officer who recorded AP's name, and who issued a warning to stay away from the site or face arrest.

 

[MikeC]

As that is the only actual fire in the pics you posted and the rest was smoke, I think that is good going.

The fires were piddling. I don't care how often you deny it... it is the truth.

You don't bother the evidence fairy much, do you??

Source

 

[Mick West]

As that is the only actual fire in the pics you posted and the rest was smoke, I think that is good going.

The fires were piddling. I don't care how often you deny it... it is the truth.

And yet the reason I posted that particular photo was to demonstrate just how misleading it was. What do you think was going on on the other side? Someone fixed a dense smoke generator on every window on every floor?

Define "piddling".

 

[BombDr]

I believe its possible that a demolition of some kind took place, perhaps in verinage style using an unconventional technology such as thermate/thermite. I believe it's entirely possible that enough devices could have been planted and concealed, that there were potential opportunities to do so, and these devices wouldn't necessarily have been without insulation against fire.

Walk me through it please, how many charges, how many people, how do they do it covertly? How are they initiated? Please give details, and not 'I can't believe Black-Ops people don't do this all the time'.

 

[Oxymoron]

Well let's not forget what this thread is about... NIST not testing for explosives, which is compared to usual banal quips of well NIST did not test for termites, rust, aliens, unicorns etc ad nausea ad absurdum.

Well if you simply listen to the OS, why should they when there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there could in any way possible be even the slightest stick of dynamite or even a firecracker because no one of all the millions of New Yorkers heard anything or experienced anything that could possibly be an explosion and on and on and on and on.......... and an and on..... for 12 years and counting.

So we have to look at proper news sources instead of lamestream lying propagandist politico junk warmongering deny annything the gov doesn't want the sheeple to know until they have their brains cleaned to such a degree that they are so stupified all they want is to be left alone and watch any old sitcom on the tv and drink as much beer as possible to take the bad taste away.

But for those with greater fortitude we can fire up the internet and look at WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building

Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. ... As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. "The elevators just blew right out. We couldn't believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal."

This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'

But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."

Well that is a little taster, obviously there are many many more reports of these explosions and bombs going off but you all know that. No reports of any termite attacks or spacemen charging on unicorns so perhaps NIST were right not to check for that but as far as not checking for explosives... it was criminal negligence and I seriously cannot understand the workings of anyone's mind who sticks up for them.

​

 

[Mick West]

The thread is about if not testing for explosives then invalidates the rest of the evidence that WTC7 was brought down by fire. Is it a valid excuse to ignore and not address that evidence?

To dismiss the fires as "piddling" is simply wrong, regardless of if you think there is evidence of explosives. Clearly there were some very long lasting and large fires. Equally clearly firefighters predicted the building was going to collapse because of those fires.

 

[Grieves]

Walk me through it please,

not psychic, but alright...

how many charges,

enough, presumably.

how many people,

5 over a couple of weeks? 20 over a few days? No idea.

how do they do it covertly?

By pretending to be doing something else. Like, say, installing new fireproofing on a few specific floors.

How are they initiated?

Remote? Timed device? Discreet manual trigger with a delay? Couldn't say.

Please give details

Dick Cheney, in the White-house, with the candlestick..!

 

[Grieves]

To dismiss the fires as "piddling" is simply wrong, regardless of if you think there is evidence of explosives.

I'd agree, but to emphasize them as being raging infernos is misleading. There were, indeed, large fires in the building. They were not however nearly as extensive, fast-spreading, of high-burning as other examples of far more intense office fires, examples which often burned just as long, if not significantly longer than WTC 7, and yet resulted in either no collapse or only minor partial collapses, and nothing remotely like the uniform, complete collapse of wtc 7. That doesn't discount the possibility of a random collapse due to fire, but it makes it hard for me to fathom the notion that a random collapse due to fire is the only possibility, especially considering no effort was made to gather conclusive/pertinent information from the body of physical evidence that could explain it.

Equally clearly firefighters predicted the building was going to collapse because of those fires.

And here's an interesting point. It's true that a few firefighters were quoted as suggesting the building was going to collapse, and this is indeed evidence supportive of the official scenario worthy of note. That being said, why is it that when a first-responder is quoted as making a comment the day of in support of the official account, that quote is referenced by its proponents with an authority as if it were highly indicative of the reality of the situation... and yet, when a first responder is quoted as witnessing/experiencing something which contradicts the official account, that first responder was just mistaken/confused/traumatized/lying, and his/her testimony doesn't really constitute evidence of anything at all?

 

[Mick West]

I'd agree, but to emphasize them as being raging infernos is misleading. There were, indeed, large fires in the building. They were not however nearly as extensive, fast-spreading, of high-burning as other examples of far more intense office fires, examples which often burned just as long, if not significantly longer than WTC 7, and yet resulted in either no collapse or only minor partial collapses, and nothing remotely like the uniform, complete collapse of wtc 7. That doesn't discount the possibility of a random collapse due to fire, but it makes it hard for me to fathom the notion that a random collapse due to fire is the only possibility, especially considering no effort was made to gather conclusive/pertinent information from the body of physical evidence that could explain it.

Any particular examples in mind? Buildings differ, fires differ, circumstances differ. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/18...s-Tallest-Building-Fire-(Grozny-City-Complex)

And here's an interesting point. It's true that a few firefighters were quoted as suggesting the building was going to collapse, and this is indeed evidence supportive of the official scenario worthy of note. That being said, why is it that when a first-responder is quoted as making a comment the day of in support of the official account, that quote is referenced by its proponents with an authority as if it were highly indicative of the reality of the situation... and yet, when a first responder is quoted as witnessing/experiencing something which contradicts the official account, that first responder was just mistaken/confused/traumatized/lying, and his/her testimony doesn't really constitute evidence of anything at all?

Because fire explains both accounts, and the collapse has been shown to be consistent with fire. Their experience do NOT contradict the official account.

 

[Oxymoron]

Any particular examples in mind? Buildings differ, fires differ, circumstances differ. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/18...s-Tallest-Building-Fire-(Grozny-City-Complex)



Because fire explains both accounts, and the collapse has been shown to be consistent with fire. Their experience do NOT contradict the official account.

And 'which official account' are you referring to? The official account that 7 was brought down by fierce fires fuelled by diesel from con ed which 'melted' the steel, (melted as in heated enough to destroy it's structural integrity such that it buckled and collapsed in a progressive and total collapse or the official account that claimed 7's foundations were so damaged by the collapse of 1 &2 that 7 inevitably collapsed or the official account that the beams were unseated by expansion (which didn't affect the concrete and steel floors) other than to collapse them invisibly and in an imaginary way to make the outcome fit the method? Which official story is it. I take it it is the last one because no one wants to admit that the first two were ever put forward as official explanations over the previous 6 years because they were shown to be bogus.

And yes, the fact they did no tests invalidates their findings because their findings are based on imagination involving no physical tests which everyone knows is not the basis of science. Science dictates that experiments should be able to be reproduced to show the cause and effect; not the other way around.

As for bananas and custard analogies, that even applies to virtually identical towers such as 1 and 2, both constructed the same both hit by same planes but 'Oh they are incomparable as the wind direction, angle of attack, floors hit were all different resulting in totally different types of collapse. Except they were not that different apart from the minutiae. They both collapsed in a similar time frame in similar manner from similar damage at near freefall acceleration. Not much difference really, especially to the people within them.

All three buildings had hot spots for months at the bases, same obfuscation and secrecy surrounding all events. Same crappy video with cut to blacks on impacts which were supposed to be live feeds that had dubbed sound on them... it is a travesty.

And you keep saying 7's fires were not piddly but compared to fires in many other similar buildings of similar construction which did not collapse after burning far more intensely and for 3 or 4 times as long, they were piddly. Obviously as a 'technical term', it is relative and no I would not like to be trapped inside such a building and may well expect to die if I was but knowing what I know, I would expect to die from smoke inhalation or heat from the fires and not from being crushed to death by the building collapsing into it's own footprint in an implosion which is so difficult to do that it would take some amazing expert months to plan it and which happened entirely perfectly from random fires on random beams at random times and random damage from random ejecta which did not set fire to the buildings either side of it.

​

And I agree, It was Dick Cheyne, in the Whitehouse, with a candlestick... case closed.

 

[Mick West]

And 'which official account' are you referring to? The official account that 7 was brought down by fierce fires fuelled by diesel from con ed which 'melted' the steel, (melted as in heated enough to destroy it's structural integrity such that it buckled and collapsed in a progressive and total collapse or the official account that claimed 7's foundations were so damaged by the collapse of 1 &2 that 7 inevitably collapsed or the official account that the beams were unseated by expansion (which didn't affect the concrete and steel floors) other than to collapse them invisibly and in an imaginary way to make the outcome fit the method? Which official story is it. I take it it is the last one because no one wants to admit that the first two were ever put forward as official explanations over the previous 6 years because they were shown to be bogus.

I'm referring to NCSTAR 1-9
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

There were earlier theories, of course, just like in any investigation. Theories change or are disproven as new information comes to light. The diesel was found not to be a factor. I don't remember people taking about damage to the foundation, but I'm sure it's posible they were.

And yes, the fact they did no tests invalidates their findings because their findings are based on imagination involving no physical tests which everyone knows is not the basis of science. Science dictates that experiments should be able to be reproduced to show the cause and effect; not the other way around.

Clearly though they can't just build another WTC7 and burn it down. They had to go by the available evidence: the spread of the fire, the observed damage from WTC1, the known structure of the building and the type of connections and steel used, the sequence of collapse.

As for bananas and custard analogies, that even applies to virtually identical towers such as 1 and 2, both constructed the same both hit by same planes but 'Oh they are incomparable as the wind direction, angle of attack, floors hit were all different resulting in totally different types of collapse. Except they were not that different apart from the minutiae. They both collapsed in a similar time frame in similar manner from similar damage at near freefall acceleration. Not much difference really, especially to the people within them.

Not sure what your point is there.

All three buildings had hot spots for months at the bases, same obfuscation and secrecy surrounding all events. Same crappy video with cut to blacks on impacts which were supposed to be live feeds that had dubbed sound on them... it is a travesty.

Now what are you suggesting? That the video was faked? That something happened on impact that was not shown?

And you keep saying 7's fires were not piddly but compared to fires in many other similar buildings of similar construction which did not collapse after burning far more intensely and for 3 or 4 times as long, they were piddly.

Which buildings? Let's analyze that.

 

[BombDr]

not psychic, but alright...
enough, presumably.
5 over a couple of weeks? 20 over a few days? No idea.
By pretending to be doing something else. Like, say, installing new fireproofing on a few specific floors.
Remote? Timed device? Discreet manual trigger with a delay? Couldn't say.

Dick Cheney, in the White-house, with the candlestick..!

Thank you. To be fair to you, no other truthers have a clue either.

 

[BombDr]

Piddling Fires.

More small fires.



...

 

[SR1419]

lamestream lying propagandist politico junk warmongering deny annything the gov doesn't want the sheeple to know until they have their brains cleaned to such a degree that they are so stupified all they want is to be left alone and watch any old sitcom on the tv and drink as much beer as possible to take the bad taste away.

This type of blatant, insulting antagonism/biased tirade is really unproductive....



Piddling...yes, it is relative...compared to Jupiter the Earth is piddling...

Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that's an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

I'd agree, but to emphasize them as being raging infernos is misleading. There were, indeed, large fires in the building. They were not however nearly as extensive, fast-spreading, of high-burning as other examples of far more intense office fires, examples which often burned just as long, if not significantly longer than WTC 7, and yet resulted in either no collapse or only minor partial collapses, and nothing remotely like the uniform, complete collapse of wtc 7. That doesn't discount the possibility of a random collapse due to fire, but it makes it hard for me to fathom the notion that a random collapse due to fire is the only possibility, especially considering no effort was made to gather conclusive/pertinent information from the body of physical evidence that could explain it.

And here's an interesting point. It's true that a few firefighters were quoted as suggesting the building was going to collapse

The FACT is the Windsor fire DID initiate collapse after only a couple hours of burning- collapse that was arrested by the design of the building not the size of the fire...

...and its more than "a few" firefighters who thought WTC7 was going to collapse- by this website's estimate it was 39 documented comments mentioning expected collapse.

Even has a handy spreadsheet to break it all down for you:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

More comments on the piddling fires:

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we're moving the command post over this way, that building's coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn't bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Plenty more here:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires


You have a large collection of eyewitness accounts from fire experts detailing the fire on scene across the timeline of the day versus a few select photos...

But Grieves I agree with you about eyewitnesses detailing accounts contrary to the OS....its just that I haven't seen any accounts that are truly contradictory...I haven't seen any accounts of people SEEING bombs go off...just that they HEARD explosions...which given the nature of the catastrophe, I think would be expected...in the heat of the battle so-to-speak- I think it is logical and likely that people first conclusion is to think that the explosion or loud noise they heard was a "bomb" when it very well could have been...any number of things- elevators crashing to the ground or any number of combustible materials exploding...but since they were just attacked they assume its a "bomb".

 

[Mick West]

WCT5 photo discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/18...s-WTC7-on-911-memorial-timeline-site-Cover-up

 

[Mick West]

Eyewitness validity discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1810-Eyewitness-accounts-of-explosions

 

[jomper]

Some truthers suggest that because NIST does not test for explosives then this means that the NIST report is unscientific, and so nothing it contains should be believed.

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

NIST does nothing here but offer a parade of logical fallacies, irrelevancies and nonsense.

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.

What does this mean? What evidence was examined that eliminated the possibility of a blast event? We know no physical evidence from the building was examined by NIST, so what evidence is NIST talking about here? Computer simulations that can't be verified? In the absence of any explanation, it is mere bare assertion.

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.

An argument from incredulity based on calculations supposing conventional explosives were used, when the alternative hypothesis suggests a specialised explosive was used.

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.

Argument from incredulity.

Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes.

Argument from incredulity.

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.

So what if that's what usually happens? Argument from incredulity.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Is this an acknowledgement on the part of NIST that the best alternative hypothesis is worth exploring? If so, isn't testing for explosive residue necessary?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

In what way did NIST examine this possibility? Bare assertion.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

Looks like we're heading for an argument from incredulity...

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

Presumably?

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Ah, just unlikely. The argument from incredulity here is so persuasive.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires

What demonstrated structural response to the fires? The fact that the building fell down? That would be begging the question of what caused the building to fall down.

Or is NIST is referring to its unverifiable computer simulations again?

NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Bare assertion.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

In view of the fact that this was supposed to have been a forensic investigation, this is burden shifting.

As anyone with a passing interest in chemistry knows, calcium sulphate (gypsum) does not release sulphur easily and certainly not under conditions such as office or rubble fires. If it did, of course, it would not be widely used inside buildings.

The presence of significant quantities of sulphur is important evidence that should not have been overlooked. Truly absurd explanations from other parties even include the suggestion it came from acid rain.

It is almost unbelievable that NIST should offer the obvious bunk that the sulphur came from gypsum as a serious suggestion. It is perhaps not so unbelievable that an organisation like the BBC, which successfully conspired to protect a predatory pedophile for decades, should repeat this suggestion without questioning it.

What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items.

No point in NIST doing any analysis, then. Burden shifting.

For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment."

In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although "… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site."

Interminable burden shifting. It is as if NIST doesn't know what kind of chemical analysis is possible.

For its study of WTC 7, why didn't NIST follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for conducting a fire investigation?

Yes, good question. Why not?

NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations," is a recommended methodology for optimizing investigations. NFPA 921 acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. This was especially true for NIST's WTC investigation, which responded to events that were much more than typical fires or explosions.

Eh? Saying broader procedures may be required doesn't mean existing procedures should be ignored. Exactly how are the fires supposed to be much more than typical office fires? Isn't the NIST hypothesis that office fires are responsible for the collapse?

And what explosions are being referred to here? The ones that NIST absurdly insists didn't happen?

These aren't even logical fallacies. It's just nonsense.

However, NIST's WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method.

The application of the scientific method involves considering, among other things, the falsifiability of a theory. NIST has demonstrably failed to do this with respect to the best alternative hypothesis, which it has acknowledged but wholly failed to show it has investigated.

It is as if NIST doesn't realise the evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 exhibits striking features which a layman would reasonably say makes it appear engineered, an opinion confirmed by independent experts.

The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained (including documents about the design and construction of the structure)

However, all physical evidence from the building, including physical evidence that showed WTC 7 steel had been subject to a "mysterious" attack was ignored.

and the origin of the fire

which was hypothesised

was determined based on images, laboratory testing (conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7), and mathematical analyses

that cannot be independently verified in their modelled form.

Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires,

Neither of which are applicable to the alternative hypothesis

hypothetical blast events

which may be applicable but the precise consideration of this possibility is not documented...

and fires within the Con Ed substation

which is also not applicable to the alternative hypothesis.

NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building.

NIST first produced a hypothesis and then drylabbed a computer model to support it, a suggestion any true supporter of the scientific method would direct at an organisation that presents a computer model that cannot be verified as evidence of anything.

This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.

An assertion so bare-faced and absurd it is laughable.

I have already pointed out the serious geopolitical consequences of presenting this kind of text as evidence that the alternative hypothesis has been adequately examined, and suggest "debunkers" start there.

 

[Jazzy]

As anyone with a passing interest in chemistry knows, calcium sulphate (gypsum) does not release sulphur easily and certainly not under conditions such as office or rubble fires

Then obviously a "passing" interest isn't good enough in this case, and perhaps the study of hot aqueous ionic chemistry would be more to the point, because I seem to remember that fireman played water onto red-hot rubble for weeks...

Unless you're willing for your ignorance to be your guide? IMO that's your modus operandi. And my argument from incredulity.

 

[jomper]

Water doesn't do it either without a catalyst, Jazzy. And the temperatures have to be precise.

Next?

 

[Jazzy]

Water doesn't do it either without a catalyst, Jazzy. And the temperatures have to be precise.

Next?

And who are you to say those conditions weren't met? Are you really suggesting there weren't suitable catalysts and temperatures in five hundred thousand tons of wetted hot wreckage?

Thanks for confirming your MO.

 

[Boston]

The question is not really "should they have tested or not".

It's more "how much does it change things that they say they did not test?"

i.e., if they said they tested for explosives,but found none, and said they examined all the steel, but it all looked consistent with fire and progressive collapse, then would that actually change the mind of any truther?

Grieves? Would it help? If so, why do you think they did not pretend to do it?

absolutely assuming what "they said" was actually accurate, but since those things very deliberately didn't happen, then what have you, an utterly false conclusion. Its obvious to all but the most staunch deniers that every column in the building let go at exactly the correct time ( virtually instantaneous for the exterior wall ) in order to bring the building down directly into its own footprint. This fact alone negates any chance of something that by definition is a random "progressive collapse" from occurring. Particularly since its never occurred before in any steal framed building. Instead what we see is a symmetrical collapse exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition

It sounds redundant because it is, SUUUURRRREEEE we'd change our tune had an actual investigation have occurred, but that very deliberately didn't occur and so, given the facts, including the ones NIST specifically ignored ( little things like metal glowing at 1200°C when no office fire could have possibly burned any hotter than at absolute most 825°C ) we come to the inescapable conclusion that the NIST BS is BS and that what is most likely to be true, generally is.