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

Status
Not open for further replies.

muttkat

Banned
Banned
NIST does nothing here but offer a parade of logical fallacies, irrelevancies and nonsense.
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.
An argument from incredulity based on calculations supposing conventional explosives were used, when the alternative hypothesis suggests a specialised explosive was used.
Argument from incredulity.
Argument from incredulity.
So what if that's what usually happens? Argument from incredulity.
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?
In what way did NIST examine this possibility? Bare assertion.
Looks like we're heading for an argument from incredulity...
Presumably?
Ah, just unlikely. The argument from incredulity here is so persuasive.
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?
Bare assertion.
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.
No point in NIST doing any analysis, then. Burden shifting.
Interminable burden shifting. It is as if NIST doesn't know what kind of chemical analysis is possible.
Yes, good question. Why not?
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.
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.
However, all physical evidence from the building, including physical evidence that showed WTC 7 steel had been subject to a "mysterious" attack was ignored.
which was hypothesised
that cannot be independently verified in their modelled form.
Neither of which are applicable to the alternative hypothesis
which may be applicable but the precise consideration of this possibility is not documented...
which is also not applicable to the alternative hypothesis.
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.
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.
Your first sentence says it all about NIST.

Using NIST as a reference is like using the 911 Commission Report for the official story. At least USGS & FEMA acknowledges the high temperatures. I don't know why people on this forum use NIST as their reference when its data is flawed to begin with.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html

Does this look like a fire weakened the steel result? There are sure some large cavities here.







Should 6 inch steel beams look like this?



 
Last edited by a moderator:

hiper

Active Member
Someone who is defending an institution that asks people to take things on faith is not called a debunker but a priest.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Its obvious to all but the most staunch deniers that every column in the building let go at exactly the correct time
To anyone who has watched the videos of WTC7's collapse, it should have been perfectly obvious that it didn't. Try not to use Goebbels' "big lie" approach to this topic.

virtually instantaneous for the exterior wall
Also untrue, in that it buckled about a third the way up. That's VERY difficult to "arrange".

in order to bring the building down directly into its own footprint
Which, again, didn't happen. The fascia reached across the street, and also folded over the wreckage.

little things like metal glowing at 1200°C when no office fire could have possibly burned any hotter than at absolute most 825°C
What, sixteen floors of office in a 25mph wind? All the fire research figures I have seen mention temperatures of 1100 deg C.

A ten-ton steel beam 600 feet up has considerable gravitational potential energy locked inside it, yet at ground level it has NONE. Where do you suppose that energy went? Into refrigerating itself?

we come to the inescapable conclusion that the NIST BS is BS
It's time for you to recombine your split personality.

and that what is most likely to be true, generally is.
That's a truism. It rather depends on your education, your perception and your ability to interpret physical events.

Had the fires been as cool as 825 deg C, the only difference it would have made would have been to the time it took for the three buildings to collapse. They would still have collapsed, because the transition point for steel starts at 475 deg C, and any temperature above that would allow the steels to deform over time, and such deformation allows heavier load-bearing elements to shed their load onto lighter elements. This always leads to failure of the weakest structural component in the end.

Creep and buckling are part of NIST's vocabulary, and also part of mine. But NOT part of your (plural) vocabularies. Think about it.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
To anyone who has watched the videos of WTC7's collapse, it should have been perfectly obvious that it didn't. Try not to use Goebbels' "big lie" approach to this topic.

False, if you actually watch the film you see the four corners all drop at once, you can also see the kink develop a split second before the corners all go at once, you can see that the kink is not in the exact middle of the building but slightly off to one side. You can see the roof line remain continuous throughout the fall, clearly indicating that every single column had to let go in perfect unison and it can be clearly seen that the building did in fact fall at free fall speed for a significant portion of its collapse. Period, any refusal to acknowledge those simple facts is nothing less than denial.

Also untrue, in that it buckled about a third the way up. That's VERY difficult to "arrange".

False, there is no buckling evident in any of the video evidence, what is evident is that all the buildings outer walls globally pulled inward upon its eventual meeting of resistance from the rubble pile. This effect is a very specific construct of a controlled demolition where inner steal work is used to weight the outer walls and control there collapse in a particular direction, had not every single major connecting beam to these out side columns been left connected we would have seen a much much larger rubble pile. You forget I've managed numerous high rise construction sites. The inner end of each of those connecting beams is cut loose and the outer ends left somewhat intact so as to pull the outer walls in and thus "control" the demolition.


Which, again, didn't happen. The fascia reached across the street, and also folded over the wreckage.

False, The building fell beautifully in a text book example of a controlled demolition, some small portion of the wreckage did appear to have fallen from the rubble pile but then again as that pile was pretty tall that can be expected, which why there is a minimum safe distance of other structures to any controlled demolition. For a 47 story building, 40 isn't it. Also it is common for the upper portion of the outer walls of a controlled demolition to land on top of the pile like that, kinda like icing on the cake for the guys who set it up.


What, sixteen floors of office in a 25mph wind? All the fire research figures I have seen mention temperatures of 1100 deg C.

I've no idea what research you've been looking at but NIST never admitted any temps of that range that I'm aware of cause if they did they'd have to explain just how an office fire which would typically burn at about 400°C with an absolute max temp of 825°C could have possibly gotten up to 1100°C. Or were you suggesting temps in F ?

A ten-ton steel beam 600 feet up has considerable gravitational potential energy locked inside it, yet at ground level it has NONE. Where do you suppose that energy went? Into refrigerating itself?

But we didn't see a ten ton steel beam 600 feet up come crashing down, we saw an entire building, in perfect unison exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition come crashing down, and its kinetic energy is controlled so specifically that it manages to fall through its path of greatest resistance, rather than its energy follow the path of least resistance as would be expected of any falling object.


It's time for you to recombine your split personality.

Its time for you to admit your decent into personal attacks is fueled by a lack of rational consideration of the facts and an inability to defend an indefensible position ;-)


That's a truism. It rather depends on your education, your perception and your ability to interpret physical events.

A but NIST would have us believe that a virtual impossibility is exactly what happened, and three times in a row, all on the same day, and all without any rational scientific investigation, like mapping the debris field or noting the type and location of damage to each beam ;-)

Had the fires been as cool as 825 deg C, the only difference it would have made would been to the time it took for the three buildings to collapse. They would still have collapsed, because the transition point for steel starts at 475 deg C, and any temperature above that would allow the steels to deform over time, and such deformation allows heavier load-bearing elements to shed their load onto lighter elements. This always leads to failure of the weakest structural component in the end.

Wrong, the fires were more likely in the 400°C range and would not have been able to cause sufficient weakening to significantly effect the buildings structural integrity, even if the fires were in the 475°C range there would be no significant structural damage. The madrid fire is a good example of this, burned way way hotter than most, for much much longer than most, and yet. only a few stories of steel fell and in a highly asymmetrical manor, entirely different than what we see in WTC 7s collapse.

Creep and buckling are part of NIST's vocabulary, and also part of mine. But NOT part of your (plural) vocabularies. Think about it.

Oh I see creepers and I see buckling but its all in your arguments and not anywhere evident in the collapse of WTC 7
Sorry but the simple facts are that your ignoring the facts. I see denial in its worst form. Its more than obvious that WTC 7 fell in a manor exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition and for that to be a random occurrence based on asymmetrical damage to a complex steel structure is a virtual impossibility. You have to add up how many beams and columns are in that building and then now exactly what fall pattern occurred and what let go a the exact same times in order to calculate the odds. but I don't think there's a statistician out there that would put those odds at less than quadrillions to one

Yup its a guess but think about all the multiples involved. Yikes, the odds are astronomical
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
jomper said:
you see the four corners all drop at once
No you cannot. It isn't technically or logically possible for that to have happened.

Same for "You can see the roof line - every single column had to let go" and all the rest of your responses.

You are plainly and directly wrong in what you think you saw, and how you interpreted it.

"There is no buckling evident in any of the video evidence" - so what? The buckling occurred beneath the camera frame, so couldn't possibly have occurred within it, but the fact that it buckled is plainly apparent in the stills of the wreckage, as when a surface buckles, it folds, and the fascia is in plain view, folded.

I could go through what you write item by item, but any reader will get the drift, and work it through for themselves. You have my condolences for what you might have been. Learn to spell.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Sorry but the simple facts are that your ignoring the facts. I see denial in its worst form. Its more than obvious that WTC 7 fell in a manor exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition and for that to be a random occurrence based on asymmetrical damage to a complex steel structure is a virtual impossibility. You have to add up how many beams and columns are in that building and then now exactly what fall pattern occurred and what let go a the exact same times in order to calculate the odds. but I don't think there's a statistician out there that would put those odds at less than quadrillions to one

Yup its a guess but think about all the multiples involved. Yikes, the odds are astronomical

It is rather astronomical odds that that the boom boom boom boom boom boom boom must precede the collapse of a building due to controlled demolition.

Controlled demolitions don't just happen. They have to be planned. It takes much time to prepare the demolition site. There are astronomical odds against that having happened.
 

Ron J

Active Member
"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."


The fires visible in the lower north windows of WTC7, looked as if they worked their way across pretty much the entire floor. The flames pouring out of a wide section of the east windows was floor to ceiling. It didn't look piddling. The east wing was where the floors under the east Penthouse collapsed, causing the Penthouse to fall in.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
No you cannot. It isn't technically or logically possible for that to have happened.

Same for "You can see the roof line - every single column had to let go" and all the rest of your responses.

You are plainly and directly wrong in what you think you saw, and how you interpreted it.

"There is no buckling evident in any of the video evidence" - so what? The buckling occurred beneath the camera frame, so couldn't possibly have occurred within it, but the fact that it buckled is plainly apparent in the stills of the wreckage, as when a surface buckles, it folds, and the fascia is in plain view, folded.

I could go through what you write item by item, but any reader will get the drift, and work it through for themselves. You have my condolences for what you might have been. Learn to spell.
And this is what you are reduced to. Falsely attributing others' remarks to me because you cannot address the points I have actually made.

Your powers are weak, old man. You are no match for the power of reason.
 

Ron J

Active Member
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

 

MikeC

Closed Account
no - that is begging the question and supposition.

A question for you - once a building has lost sufficient structural integrity, how should it fall?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
He has addressed the points over and over and over. Just I and others have.
Steel weakens and softens long before it melts, that is how horse shoe is made. I have steel frying pans that warped with just the heat of my gas burners, it was never white, or even red hot.

I have helped a blacksmith, have you?
 
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.

The same argument is made about the steel.
(quote snipped)

I think it is important to go back to Mick's opening statement and question..........

I have skimmed through all the responses - over the days probably read all or most..............
And I wanna give my take.

Airplane disasters can be pieced/put back together. In some cases.
Look at TWA 800. They recovered most and it is sitting in a hangar and being utilized as a training tool for youngsters getting into the gig of crash investigation.
As we speak...................

In terms of WTC7 or the other Towers.....................
And preserving 'evidence'......................

An Airplane is a pretty 'finite' animal.
If the pieces are there/recovered then they can be put back together.
To somewhat resemble an airplane.

Three buildings at Ground Zero?
Two of them at one point the largest man-made objects on the planet?

And all of those buildings spread spread debris over a wide area when they came down.....
And intermixed........

Can you imagine the work and endless rabbit holes to consider if you roped it off for forensic investigation??????????

Meaning I have pulled this from this exact spot and we will document it and run tests on it?????????
I don't know..............................................

You can place an airplane part..................
A piece of metal at GZ?????????????

If people want to learn more about the relationship of fire and temperature and metal failure..........

Then the place to do it - well it wouldn't have been salvaging parts/"evidence" at GZ.

You do it by running controlled tests.

Tests out metal beams holding "x" load at "y" temperature for "C" amount of time.
And no one knows what those factors were that day.

CD?

It would have been a needle in a haystack.
How much residue would survive at GZ while fires actually continued to burn? For days/weeks?
Where do you look for it?
You mean impound, collect, and catalogue all of GZ?

Why do that when you know that incredibely heavy, fuel-laden objects impacted with tremendous force
and caused fires that were being photographed from Space?

It would have been a waste of money..........................................
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
And this is what you are reduced to. Falsely attributing others' remarks to me because you cannot address the points I have actually made. Your powers are weak, old man. You are no match for the power of reason.
My apologies. The format demanded I extract the text, and I wrongly headed it up with your name. And, yes, I am old. :)

OK, from a previous post of YOURS you say "NIST does nothing here but offer a parade of logical fallacies, irrelevancies and nonsense" but then you fail to list them, believing them to be covered by baseless assertions of your own. Such as

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.
Is it clever of you to ignore the visible and audible evidence of the many videocams recording the event?

the alternative hypothesis suggests a specialised explosive was used.
Yes, thermite, a material which produces its own weight of alumina when burnt. None of which was found.

Apart from which anyone's credulity becomes incredibly overtaxed trying to imagine insulated and water-cooled radio-operated thermate charges capable of surviving seven hours at up to 1100 deg C. Mine certainly does! LOL.

What demonstrated structural response to the fires? The fact that the building fell down?
No.

That the floor beams expanded beyond their lateral fixing tolerances and disconnected from their columns. Didn't you study thermal expansion in 5th grade? Do you know how thermometers work?

In view of the fact that this was supposed to have been a forensic investigation, this is burden shifting.
No. Paint and primer applied to all steelwork was indeed aluminum powder and iron oxide powder-based.

And what explosions are being referred to here? The ones that NIST absurdly insists didn't happen?
There are many possible explosions in large fires. Sealed steel pipes and fire extinguishers explode in a fire. Batteries, junction boxes, any sealed tanks, rooms filled with smoke. They all might explode.

These aren't even logical fallacies. It's just nonsense.
Which is your argument from ignorance.

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.
To concern oneself with the impossible wasn't part of their brief. It may be to your taste.

However, all physical evidence from the building was ignored.
There were higher priorities at the time than researching the technically impossible.

the origin of the WTC7 fire was hypothesized
I don't think so. If an express train crashes into a terminus at full speed, that it will start a fire in a combustible area is NO HYPOTHESIS. It's a certainty.

(Simulations) that cannot be independently verified in their modelled form.
Yet they so accurately follow events, don't they? I don't believe that Hollywood or whoever could produce such pretty and accurate simulations (in that they matched the sequence and timing of the collapse) without the real figures. And the real figures would wasted on you (or on anyone you might believe) anyway. Isn't that true? If an independent investigation confirmed the NIST findings you would believe it, would you? In a pig's ear...

the alternative hypothesis - many times.
Ruled out because of the pre-requirement of insulated and water-cooled radio-operated thermate charges capable of surviving seven hours at up to 1100 deg C.

I have already pointed out the serious geopolitical consequences of presenting this kind of text
An assertion as bare-faced and absurd as it is laughable.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
no - that is begging the question and supposition.

A question for you - once a building has lost sufficient structural integrity, how should it fall?
asymmetrically, in relation to the damage that caused that lack of structural integrity or exactly the opposite of what we see in the collapse of building 7

Other than that, not a post worthy of response ;-)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
asymmetrically, or exactly the opposite of what we see in the collapse of building 7
Had the videocams recording the collapse been located off the west side of WTC7 you would have seen its asymmetric collapse, proceeding backwards from, but falling towards, its damaged face, and you wouldn't be making this argument.

But they weren't. They were located off the north face, which was the last part of the building to remain erect, and gave the merest semblance of a symmetric collapse.

The images they recorded fooled you. You were happy, and resolved to think no further. You had got what you wanted: something confirming your preconceptions.
 

Boston

Active Member
I call BS. So your saying that the presumed folding and asymmetrical collapse NIST proposes where invisible o_Oo_Oo_Oo_O


From how many cameras ? ten or twenty camera angles taken of its fall, horse pucky. I call blatant denial of the simple facts. There are multiple videos that from every imaginable angle and none show an asymmetrical collapse. What fooled "you" was not only the video evidence but the absolute nonsense out of the NIST report that leads you to not believe your eyes and instead, cling by the skin of your teeth to one of the most entirely implausible and unlikely fairy tail thats ever been foisted off on the American people. Ludicrous is a good description of the NIST report in its virtually impossible description of the events of that day.

How do office fires which burn at a max temp of 825°C in ideal conditions ( more like 400°C under typical conditions ) generate light yellow glowing metal ( 1100 ~ 1200°C ) which is clearly seen being plucked out of the rubble pile. The simple visual evidence is irrefutable. Unless that is one prefers to exist within a state of denial.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
asymmetrically, in relation to the damage that caused that lack of structural integrity or exactly the opposite of what we see in the collapse of building 7
Asymmetrically in what way?

As explained here the collapse is not actually "symmetrical" in the first place - so what is the actual problem??


Other than that, not a post worthy of response ;-)
since that was the only question why bother with this comment?
 

Boston

Active Member
I think we're having a semantic issue withe the term Symmetrical. Dominoes can fall symmetrically if set up correctly, a progressive collapse can be symmetrical if controlled by demolitions experts. The WTC 7 collapse was beautifully symmetrical in every regard.

Hey Mick one thing we would have eventually gotten to over on another thread I decided it was best to bail out on was that in a controlled demolition, typically its the interior of the building that leads the show. Without it falling first there is a lot of resistance on the outside columns connective beams which need to be cut away and have the ability to drag the exterior walls inward upon the exteriors global collapse. Its a rough concept a lot of people not familiar with the construction of high rises just don't get, but had you made a more rational argument concerning the collapse of the penthouse area I would have conceded the point gladly, however not in the manor you would have preferred. The penthouse obviously fell, but we don't know that it fell all the way to the basement, what we can see as evidence of the interior of the building having fallen first though is the exterior of the building having being "pulled" inward, again perfectly symmetrically, with all exterior components moving inward instead of outward. I see zero evidence that anything other than the rubble pile itself caused any of the debris to land anywhere outside the rubble pile. IE the building fell directly down through the path of most resistance into its own footprint. There is only one way to do this, and thats with a precisely timed series of demolitions designed specifically to achieve this goal. Which is why I keep using the term "in a manor synonomous with a controlled demolition" because that is exactly what is seen.

OH and actually Mike 7 years later and with absolutely no evidence to definitively show what fell where we have only a few overhead shots to indicate exactly how the building fell and they universally show the exact same thing. One small bit of the building ( maybe 1% ) fell outside the rubble pile which itself was within what ? 15' of the buildings exact perimeter ? Text book controlled demolition. ;-)

Show me the rubble pile of a single steel framed high rise in the 50 story region which fell so exactly into its own footprint. Thats about a 600' fall with all pieces landing within 15' or so radius of the foundation. Oh wait, you can't cause no steel framed structure ever fell due to, well, anything before ;-)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I think we're having a semantic issue withe the term Symmetrical. Dominoes can fall symmetrically if set up correctly, a progressive collapse can be symmetrical if controlled by demolitions experts. The WTC 7 collapse was beautifully symmetrical in every regard.
Except for the bits that were not symmetrical....



oh - look - not symmetrical at all....

OH and actually Mike 7 years later and with absolutely no evidence to definitively show what fell where we have only a few overhead shots to indicate exactly how the building fell and they universally show the exact same thing. One small bit of the building ( maybe 1% ) fell outside the rubble pile which itself was within what ? 15' of the buildings exact perimeter ? Text book controlled demolition. ;-)
Text book building falling down too.

Show me the rubble pile of a single steel framed high rise in the 50 story region which fell so exactly into its own footprint. Thats about a 600' fall with all pieces landing within 15' or so radius of the foundation.
All buildings that fall down fall very close to their "footprint" because gravity pulls them DOWN - not sideways!!:rolleyes: That's a simple fundamental fact that you nongs keep forgetting!

Buildings do not "fall over" - they fall DOWN.

Oh wait, you can't cause no steel framed structure ever fell due to, well, anything before ;-)
Indeed - and so therefore you have nothing upon which to say it is "wrong" somehow. Cuts both ways....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
Buildings do not "fall over" - they fall DOWN.
Debunked ;-)


and right about 25 seconds into this one we see what should have happened in the world trade centers where the tops of the buildings should have slid off to one side or another

 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Why are you using an "example" that isn't a steel framed building 700 feet high like you say examples have to be???:confused:

Right at 28 seconds they say what the problem was - the foundation gave way......I don't recall....did the foundation give way for WTC 7??:rolleyes:
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Well, you ask for something that is impossible, since the tallest building ever imploded was just under 30 stories.

http://mrrational88.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/911-theories-fell-into-its-own-footprint/


http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_truth_movement_the_top_conspiracy_theory_a_decade_later/

Well, it the nuke theory is correct, the foundation would have. It seems that substandard materials and an excavation to near to it's foundation. And it was only 8 stories.


http://www.philstar.com/opinion/259001/sai-building-tondo-simply-fell-tree





http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/14197556/manila-condo-topples
 

Boston

Active Member
All buildings that fall down fall very close to their "footprint" because gravity pulls them DOWN - not sideways!!:rolleyes: That's a simple fundamental fact that you nongs keep forgetting!

Buildings do not "fall over" - they fall DOWN.
Debunked

 

Boston

Active Member
Just can't admit when your wrong now can you.

Pretty sure that concludes our lesson for today kids

Cheers
B
 

Boston

Active Member
and one more just for fun ;-)


I might also note the amount of damage it takes something like this to fall over, ;-) rather than directly into its own footprint.

Oh and yah, you mean why am I presenting you with exactly the same argument you keep trying to present yourself. HMmmmmmm, can't imagine why actually :D

In a nut shell I'm debunking a specific statement, nice try though.

Still not going to admit your not just a little wrong about those buildings that can only fall straight down, but miles wrong. I can provide countless examples of buildings falling over instead of down.

You guys chew on that for a while.

I've got a hot date :cool:
 

MikeC

Closed Account

nice - see what happens when you chop out 1 side of the base of the building - yeah - fair enough........but of course the silo does actually fall fown too :)

so which part of the base of WTC 7 was chopped out again so that it should have toppled - I forget....

Oh and yah, you mean why am I presenting you with exactly the same argument you keep trying to present yourself. HMmmmmmm, can't imagine why actually :D
no - I don't mean that at all....since you are not.....unless you are talking to someone else other than me?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Buildings RARELY fall over, even in Earthquakes (the exceptions there are when there is major liquidfication of soil).

If you will look at pictures from earthquakes you will see more pancaked buildings than ones that fell over

Do you remember the pancaked apartment building and the pancaked freeway in the Northridge quake?

Granted the majority of the building are concrete ones. Churches tend to collapse in quakes because they have long unsupported roofs (sort of like the floors in the WTC)


http://www.wbdg.org/resources/seismic_design.php


 

jomper

Inactive Member
The images they recorded fooled you. You were happy, and resolved to think no further. You had got what you wanted: something confirming your preconceptions.
You see Jazzy, you're one of the people on this forum I'd call a "black-is-whiter". That's to say I think you'd insist black is white if it suited your position to do so, but more fundamentally it means I believe you will aggressively deny any aspect of the evidence in order to prevent any common ground being found between "truthers" and "debunkers", and thereby prevent the debate from advancing.

Your objective, it seems to me, is to maintain the adversarial paradigm encoded in the word "debunking" (or "metabunk" if you like) without yourself being constrained by appeals to reason. Thus, if you can frustrate or antagonise your "opponents" enough to exit the discussion while maintaining a vague aura of rationality yourself, you have "won" by stifling debate and reinforcing the impression of polarised positions.

So, although I exhaustively listed the fallacies in NIST-authored text that Mick quoted at the start of this thread line-by-line in their own terms, your response was to say

you say "NIST does nothing here but offer a parade of logical fallacies, irrelevancies and nonsense" but then you fail to list them
Or, if I say

Jomper said:
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.
You will reply

Is it clever of you to ignore the visible and audible evidence of the many videocams recording the event?
as if the video evidence isn't the evidence I'm most heavily relying on.

Then you insist this evidence is not what it seems to be by asserting that unseen events in the video evidence actually mean it supports your position rather than mine.

Clearly, this is going nowhere, and this allows you to ignore fundamental point I made about the scientific method in that post, on which we could just possibly agree:

Jomper said:
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.
However, this doesn't matter. Whether you like it or not, a reasonable person viewing the video evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time will reasonably conclude it was an engineered event.

Now, they may be a layperson and you may insist it is their ignorance of the behaviour of massive structures under collapse conditions which leads them to this erroneous conclusion. However, the geopolitical reality is that the majority of people in the Muslim nations do no believe in the official 9/11 narrative.

In Pakistan this is as much as 90% of the population.

Show one of these laypeople the video evidence of WTC 7 collapsing and they are not likely to start wondering about how to improve their building codes. Tell them the Americans insist it was caused by office fires and they will probably start to reach for a gun.

Just possibly, an exhaustive exploration and elimination of the question of controlled demolition, including testing for explosive residue, might stop some of these people becoming radicalised -- if this research existed, was clearly expressed and easily available, that is. It might actually save lives.

But in fact NIST has gone to great lengths to ignore a geopolitical reality which you call

laughable
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
My word, that was a rather wet interlude.

Why didn't Boston demonstrate the idea using a pile of cardboard boxes? Such a pile is as relevant as the little concrete biscuits he came up with. There is no relationship between the above examples other than the constant downward acceleration due to the earth's gravitational field, and they are valueless in this discussion, except to inflate Boston's ego.

Boston's videos show small stiff objects falling over. WTC7 was neither small nor stiff. It would have disintegrated, before it had leaned five degrees off the vertical, from the huge loads transferred immediately to members never designed to meet such loads.

Very large lightweight buildings made of steel are relatively rare even today. They are uniquely susceptible to fire because steel becomes PLASTIC above 475 deg C, allowing the load it was carrying to deform it, which then forces its surrounding structure to accept that load. Steel columns will settle and become FATTER and SHORTER as a consequence. Steel beams will sag, pulling inwards at their supporting columns. Floors aren't normally made solely of steel, but they would do the same. Over time, the structure will fail, as the loads migrate to the weakest element within that structure, and cause that to fail, breaking structural integrity. This is failure due to CREEP.

WTC7's demise was surprising, apparently not due to creep, but due to over expansion of hot floors which maybe hadn't sagged sufficiently. Either way, the detaching of a floor threatens the stability of the column supporting it. The detaching of TWO floors guarantees its failure in such conditions. This is Euler buckling, and has been quantified for a quarter of a millennium.

Reinforced concrete buildings behave quite differently.

The steel is fire-protected within an insulating coating of cement, and in the case of concrete columns the cement surround remains strong in compression even when the internal steel is failing due to creep. So reinforced concrete columns are significantly more robust in instances of fire than insulated steel could ever be. They will remain erect without shortening or widening. Beams and floors have their lower face in tension, so they will sag and fail just like the steel ones. The concrete will not accept tensile loads, and the steel reinforcement will creep, so floors and beams will crack and sag and ultimately collapse (as they did at the Pentagon*). Because there is significantly less steel there is significantly less sideways pull on the surrounding structure as this happens.

Truthers never dwell on the effects of fire because it isn't in their interests to do so. Their whole push is towards controlled demolition. They know that most people they wish to persuade know as little as they do. They're not going to help. Ever.

It is sad that the same glib arguments are still being presented today.

* Before the Pentagon collapsed due to creep of its exposed steel reinforcement, the RC columns had been severely damaged by the kerosene fireball explosion LIFTING several floors by several inches. The columns failed in tension, exposing their reinforcement to the kerosine and office fire which followed.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
You see Jazzy, you're one of the people on this forum I'd call a "black-is-whiter".
I have a pair of shorter words for you.

Your objective, it seems to me
Not interested.

as if the video evidence isn't the evidence I'm most heavily relying on
The distinction is in your powers of observation and interpretation. You don't see everything, you don't account for what preceded what you saw, nor do you interpret what you see directly, mainly because you do not begin without other preconceptions.

Then you insist this evidence is not what it seems to be by asserting that unseen events in the video evidence actually mean it supports your position rather than mine.
The events are visible. Some visible events preceded the collapse. Some very subtle. None so blind, etc.

fundamental point I made about the scientific method in that post, on which we could just possibly agree
I don't think so. The SM applies here, even when information becomes sparse.

a reasonable person viewing the video evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time will reasonably conclude it was an engineered event
No, they won't. They might come to that conclusion if aware of previous false flag operations, but they won't if a) they are aware of the effects of a large sustained free fire on a steel building and b) they don't allow their preconception to over-rule their perception.

However, the geopolitical reality is that the majority of people in the Muslim nations do not believe in the official 9/11 narrative
That is of no interest or relevance.

If I were to apply value to anyone's beliefs, it would to be those of the New York firemen who observed the fire without being able to fight it. They said the building was damaged, sagging, and on the way to collapse, remember?

What were their motives for saying that?

Had they been prepped with that story, even though they had just seen six hundred of their comrades deliberately killed by the people prepping them?

Give me a break. Go outside and get yourself some fresh air.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
nice - see what happens when you chop out 1 side of the base of the building - yeah - fair enough........but of course the silo does actually fall fown too :)

so which part of the base of WTC 7 was chopped out again so that it should have toppled - I forget....

well according to our believers there was some asymmetrical damage, synonymous with removing suppoet from certain areas of a building, kinda sorta like in that silo demonstration which so eloquently proved that buildings do not in fact fall "straight" down but instead virtually always fall "over" to some degree or another. Even in the finest of controlled demolitions, although in the case of controlled demolition much of that energy is trapped on the rubble pile, rather than slide off the pile


no - I don't mean that at all....since you are not.....unless you are talking to someone else other than me?
All else is just basically a whole bunch of road apples trying to squirm out of admitting the following quote is entirely wrong.

All buildings that fall down fall very close to their "footprint" because gravity pulls them DOWN - not sideways!!:rolleyes: That's a simple fundamental fact that you nongs keep forgetting!

Buildings do not "fall over" - they fall DOWN.
Debunked

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc&sa=U&ei=P8r3UduhMYmuyQHK-4GwAg&ved=0CDoQtwIwBA&sig2=-kFl2S7J1WqDwki8TkFz3g&usg=AFQjCNGdpu0-9cSJBVHstBPB-eZpvLOjOg

we learn from our mistakes people, its important to admit them and move forward, otherwise there is only stagnation and ignorance.

Cheers
B
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Thank you for those examples of how deliberately demolished buildings toppled.

Clearly since WTC 7 did not topple it was not subjected to deliberate demolition!!:D:D:D
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Apart from the principle of falsifiability. Roffle
YOU falsify it, then. Go create yourself a civil engineering structural simulation to prove NIST wrong.

It would be funny if you tried. I'd like you to try. Go on, please.

Oh, you appeared to overlook the rest of what I wrote, so I will repeat it, because I would like you to respond to it.

New York firemen said the building was damaged, sagging, and on the way to collapse.

What were their motives for saying that?

Had they been prepped with that story, even though they had just seen six hundred of their comrades deliberately killed by the people prepping them?
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
all I see is denial and distraction from the reality that the statement
All buildings that fall down fall very close to their "footprint" because gravity pulls them DOWN - not sideways!!:rolleyes: That's a simple fundamental fact that you nongs keep forgetting!

Buildings do not "fall over" - they fall DOWN.
has been thoroughly debunked
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
What about my post that discussed building pancaking? Y'all ignored it, just like you ignore the article in Structure Magazine.

Buildings fall down not over, even in earthquakes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What about my post that discussed building pancaking? Y'all ignored it, just like you ignore the article in Structure Magazine.

Buildings fall down not over, even in earthquakes.
That's an overgeneralization. In some rare cases buildings will fall "over".

But it's a pointless argument. The questions is what would happen to a building like WTC7. Why exactly would people expect it to fall in a different manner? Some thick concrete building in China rolling over has nothing to do with this.

But we get a little off topic. Let's more more specific, not more general.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
YOU falsify it, then. Go create yourself a civil engineering structural simulation to prove NIST wrong.

It would be funny if you tried. I'd like you to try. Go on, please.

Oh, you appeared to overlook the rest of what I wrote, so I will repeat it, because I would like you to respond to it.

New York firemen said the building was damaged, sagging, and on the way to collapse.

What were their motives for saying that?

Had they been prepped with that story, even though they had just seen six hundred of their comrades deliberately killed by the people prepping them?
More burden shifting. The research isn't falsifiable because NIST doesn't allow it to be; you may take refuge in an absurd public safety argument to defend this fact, but doing so does not alter the reality that NIST's conclusions are not of a quality that would make them acceptable as evidence in any court in the US.

And of course you have not actually addressed the question of verificationism yet: that would be the older form of the principle of falsifiability for people like you, who have apparently never read Popper. The truth is you don't respect or acknowledge these principles of the scientific method, and neither did NIST. I predict you will never address the importance of falsifiability here directly.

As for the question of the firefighters, how is that remotely relevant to my positioning NIST's failure to test for explosives in a geopolitical context? Your dismissal of this point by invoking an irrelevance only reveals your lack of compassion for the innocent people on the other side of the violence precipitated on the back of 9/11, as well as a failure to imagine what they might become.

Of course, firefighters' expert testimony is less useful to you when it presents evidence of explosions: suddenly they don't know how to distinguish one type of explosion from another. I don't know why you'd assume they'd need to be "prepped" with anything either. But I'm not interested in going there in this thread, as it's off topic.

[...]

[Admin: Politeness Edits]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top