The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse

[Mick West]

[imgsize=100]https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC7TiltBack.gif[/imgsize]

 

[Mick West]

[imgsize=100]https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC7BBC.gif[/imgsize]

 

[Pete Tar]

There was a really good one from the street showing the left hand side almost all the way to the ground.
And thanks, those are great.
How do you do a gif?

 

[Mick West]

There was a really good one from the street showing the left hand side almost all the way to the ground.
And thanks, those are great.
How do you do a gif?

Can you give me a video link, and the start time?

I make gifs in Photoshop CC. You just load in the movie, shrink it, set start and end times in the animation view, and Save for Web. Any CS version of photoshop should be able to do it. There's a few tricks as well, depending.

And the above use an experimental img tag that sizes it to the width of the browser window. It does not quote well.

 

[Mick West]

[imgsize=100]https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTCLeftSide2.gif[/imgsize]

 

[Pete Tar]

Yeah I think that was the one.

Well in the top one you can see the edge start to fall out wards, and in the other ones you see it fold in.
Mainly they just give an impression of raw power, of potential energy coming to a conclusion once gravity is no longer being equally opposed.

 

[jomper]

That's not fair. You're blowing smoke.

Well, I'm sure I was writing slightly off-topic

I was talking about the WTC tower tops in particular, and not WTC7.

Don't confuse what I was saying about tower tops.

I ever disagreed even slightly with Mick's take on this point I would probably mention it.

You see Jazzy, one of the advantages Mick has over you in the etiquette of online discussion is that Mick doesn't choose to arbitrarily switch from the topic under discussion to something different in answer to a question which was on topic. Then, when other posters on the board become confused because you failed entirely to make your arbitrary switch of topic clear, he doesn't display preening pomposity and low irony in response.

The real irony is that you accuse other posters, such as Boston, of poor online etiquette although you are deliberately rude yourself. Then, when they leave the discussion, I dare say you hubristically imagine that's because they can't respond to remarks even your fans describe as having the precision of an impressionist film and the scientific salience of poetry.

 

[Cairenn]

REALLY !!!

I may not always agree with Jazzy, but his posts are rooted in science, not guesses and beliefs. While you and others, choose to ignore experts in the field, and instead cling to ideas put forth by folks with little real knowledge of the buildings.

 

[Mick West]

Let's keep on topic please.

Do the giant animations above (make your browser as big as possible) give anyone a new perspective on the straight-downness or lack of folding?

Can you see that the interior must have collapsed before the exterior, by the way it folds in, and the fact that dust is forced out of upper windows.

 

[Pete Tar]

...even your fans describe as having the precision of an impressionist film and the scientific salience of poetry.

Err, no, that is just my particular perversion. I find all concise specialist language that way, which I thought I conveyed.
Sometimes words are just nice for the sounds they make and I appreciate them on that level.
That doesn't mean Jazzy was talking meaningless noise, it still came through to me, but my unfamiliarity with the discipline makes it fuzzier to me than someone trained to it.

The only reason it flies over my head is because I am completely unschooled in the jargon. I am quite confident it is accurate and concise language describing a somewhat chaotic and complex but explicable event.

 

[xenon]

Here's a fascinating look inside 7 "before collapse"
Apologies if this is old and already discussed. A limited search did not return any results.

Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse

youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

Published on Nov 20, 2012

Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse. Building 7 collapse was and still remains a mystery, as to why it even collapsed. Leave your thoughts on the mystery behind building 7 collapse, and what you think caused it to smash to the ground.​

How many "minutes before collapse"?

Some photos of the "raging" fires, taken from the video below. Nothing new here, but the Video shows some rare footage of the collapse.

 

[lee h oswald]

Chrysler building under construction, showing the interior steel frame.


Bricklayers applying the brick exterior.

Well, it's a nice picture. So we're both wrong then, yes? Trying to make some kind of capital from this is a bit on the rich side. If people go about claiming 'that's why we don't make tall buildings from brick', when one of the world's tallest buildings is made from brick, then it's just wrong, isn't it? No excuses, mitigations, misunderstandings - just wrong.
Also, to say that the brickwork is non-loadbearing isn't exactly right either - even though my imagined system is still wrong (that the gravity loads were borne at least partially on the brickwork) - because there are other loads to consider, such as torsion and wind/lateral loading, which the brickwork needs to resist in tandem with the steel frame it is tied to. So it's wrong to call it cladding, because although the brickwork may not bear the load of the steel frame (and therefore the gravity load), it is still structural. In the picture you can clearly see welded/bolted steel plate protrusions from the stuctural steelwork, there to be received by the brickwork as the male part of a male/female system. Hard to tell from the pic, but looks as if they're about 2ft long.

 

[Mick West]

Well, it's a nice picture. So we're both wrong then, yes? Trying to make some kind of capital from this is a bit on the rich side. If people go about claiming 'that's why we don't make tall buildings from brick', when one of the world's tallest buildings is made from brick, then it's just wrong, isn't it? No excuses, mitigations, misunderstandings - just wrong.
Also, to say that the brickwork is non-loadbearing isn't exactly right either - even though my imagined system is still wrong (that the gravity loads were borne at least partially on the brickwork) - because there are other loads to consider, such as torsion and wind/lateral loading, which the brickwork needs to resist in tandem with the steel frame it is tied to. So it's wrong to call it cladding, because although the brickwork may not bear the load of the steel frame (and therefore the gravity load), it is still structural. In the picture you can clearly see welded/bolted steel plate protrusions from the stuctural steelwork, there to be received by the brickwork as the male part of a male/female system. Hard to tell from the pic, but looks as if they're about 2ft long.

I called it essentially cladding. The only thing the brickwork is supporting is itself. Sure the brickwork needs to resist wind loads, but those loads only exist because of the brickwork. Any exterior has to resist wind loads

The original point was one of scale. The point was that brick construction does not scale very well. Oxy was expressing surprise that a brick wall toppled over sideways, yet WTC7 fell more of less straight down (although check the animated images above for actuality). I was trying to explain that you can't really scale up that wall to the size of the WTC7 in any sensible way - so the comparison is not really useful.

I'm surprised you though that the Chrysler building was (structurally) build entirely from brick. While not impossible, it would not leave a lot of room for offices, with those 42 foot thick walls (tapering, obviously). And it would be insanely expensive - not to mention dangerous. We don't do it because it's not practical.

(Math: Philadelphia City Hall is 548 feet high, and has 22 foot thick walls, Chrysler building is 1050 feet tall. Hence would require 1050/548*22 = 42' thick walls, assuming the bricks could take the crush load.)

 

[Cairenn]

I think what you are seeing is supports for the brick facade.

 

[lee h oswald]

Yes, I would like you dig them out. I stand by my posts, and if I got something wrong I'd explain it, then stand by the explanation. I might make mistakes, but I have never lied.

If you can't give an example of an unequivocally lie, then I ask you to apologize.

From https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wt...-actually-disagree-with-nist.1152/#post-26809

Mick

In the thread, WTC 7 (Building 7), in the context of describing the collapse of this steel and concrete building, you said, on the numbers of architects and engineers signed up to AE911 that 99.99% of the world's architects and engineers are in support of Nist's report. No matter how you try to qualify it, that is how you presented it. Oxy called it just right and challenged it:


You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.99% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false. And you replied

No. I said the seem to agree.
I said that because I know engineers, and if they saw something wrong, they would point it out.
So - at 12.10pm on 26 January, you say you know engineers that would point out if there was something wrong with Nist's explanation.

I subsequently I ask if you've asked your engineer pals about the viability of using Verinage on the towers, you say this


Mick said: ↑

I don't have any qualified engineer pals, and all the Verinage experts are French.

So - I pressed you that you'd recently said you have engineer friends in another thread (WTC7, as quoted above), and I even offered to draft a letter in French if you wanted to find out from a professional, and you then say

I don't have any VERINAGE engineer friends, or any demolition engineer friends, or highrise engineer friends, just regular civil engineering.

Right. So - first you have engineer friends who would tell you if Nist's report was wrong. Then you don't have any engineer pals, then you only have regular civil engineering friends.


If you were the narrator of a book (or, indeed, a witness in court), you'd be considered unreliable.

A clear case of making stuff up. Ofcourse, the post was removed from the thread and a new thread started with it - refusing to answer the questions posed.



And from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-...a-progressive-collapse.364/page-16#post-10132

And this? Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day. And I thought you were dedicated to the truth! So, to clarify, is it ok to continue to name at least six guys (named in the report) as the perpetrators when it has been shown they are still alive? So where exactly in the Nist report did it refer to the hi-jackers?

Then this from another contributor:

Mick: "Yes I've read it [911 Commission Report]. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day."

I must say that I'm pretty disappointed to read a statement like this here. You think it's a reasonable account even though we know they didn't consider building 7, that some of the testimony was obtained using torture, that Bush wouldn't testify alone or under oath, that some of the testimony was destroyed, that numerous commission members including the Senior Council have concluded that their own report is based on government lies? That the largest crime scene in American history was immediately cleaned-up instead of roped off and guarded so they could perform a thorough investigation? The examples of cover-up are many, which begs the question: what exactly are they covering up and why? I have my personal suspicions, but I don't know exactly what happened. All I know is there is a cover-up on some level and we have not been told the complete truth. Whether that truth shows that "9/11 was an inside job" or that our government was simply completely inept, in the end the truth needs to come out.

Clearly relating to the 911 Commission Report

and:

...you don't mind that evidence was garnered from torture; that senior members of the Report you said was a fair reflection of what happened, say it was based on govt lies; that Bush (or Cheney) refused to testify under oath or separately; you don't mind that the crime scene was destroyed. Presumably too, you don't mind that the perpetrators were named and found guilty without a proper investigation and within hours of the attacks taking place? And again
[...]


Let's not forget that this is the same Mick who says of the 9/11 Commission Report that it is 'A very reasonable account of what happened'
So, do you know how Purdue spent the Homeland Security Institute grant they received after producing this fiction? Or don't you want to talk about that?
And Le Mick's response to that was:

I don't want to talk about it​

And then:

Remembering that this thread is titled 9-11 an Inside Job? And given that you are on the record here as saying that the 9/11 Commission report is a fair account of what happened that day (indicating that you agree with the regime's version of events) then perhaps you might show me the evidence for that position​

and the very next post from Le Mick:

My evidence for it is the lack of evidence against it. [The 911 Commission Report]

The report contains what appears to be a physically accurate description of what happened​

Ooh la la!

And:

Building 7 wtc wasn't even mentioned in the Commission report - so how can you say that it's a reasonable account of what happened?
​

Again and again...Le Mick then says:

I mean that the things that the commission report says are reasonable. The NIST reports give more details, and includes WTC 7 in considerable depth.​

I could go on for hours demonstrating that you are a....what exactly? There are loads more examples of references to the 911 Commission Report and loads more references to you responding on them in that authoritative way you like to project. This compilation shows that you are full of hot air. All you need to do is look at this fabrication:

in post no. 486 in this very thread -

So to be very clear, when I said:

Mick
Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day.



I was referring to the NIST report. NCSTAR1. I have not read the 9/11 commission report. I do not know how well it reflects the truth of what happened
​

and compare it to the rest of the correspondence. What can be concluded from this?

1) You are mistaken

2) You don't read what you reply to (tenuous, that one)

3) You are a liar

Which is it, mate?
lee h oswald, May 31, 2012
#616

During the course of that thread the 911 Commission Report was referenced at least twenty times - comparisons were made between it and the Nist reports - but not by me - ie.

Mick then says:

I mean that the things that the commission report says are reasonable. The NIST reports give more details, and includes WTC 7 in considerable depth.​

 

[lee h oswald]

I'm surprised you though that the Chrysler building was (structurally) build entirely from brick.

Still can't admit being wrong? Remarkable.

I'd be surprised if I thought it was built entirely from brick - seeing as the quote I used stated 'steel frame'. Try looking back - nice try though.

 

[lee h oswald]

No, because it was a rather unique building to collapse. That does not alter the physics though.

But why on earth would you show four videos of low building made from bricks and concrete? Utterly different.

Probably got the idea from being shown video after video of controlled demolitions on pre-fab concrete structures that bear no relation to the buildings under discussion, but apparently communicate a 'principle'. Likewise tin cans are not considered 'utterly different' from skyscrapers. Just a slight double standard there.

 

[Mick West]

Still can't admit being wrong? Remarkable.

I'd be surprised if I thought it was built entirely from brick - seeing as the quote I used stated 'steel frame'. Try looking back - nice try though.

Ah yes, sorry. But your original mention seemed to suggest that the load bearing structure was brick.

And regarding my "lies" above. I explained at the time that I confused the 9/11 commission report with the NIST report. I even explain that in the bits you just quoted. So what was the lie? I was actually quite embarrassed to have gone on so long under this misconception. My excuse was that I was quite new to the 9/11 debunking world at the time. Here's my mea culpa post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-...-a-progressive-collapse.364/page-13#post-9533

I was just reading the NIST report trying to figure out which bits of it you thought were obtained by torture, and I suddenly realized that when you said:

[...]

I had assumed you meant the NIST report, as you were talking about all those technical details of the impact and collapse, but actually you were talking about the 911 commission report, which deals mostly with the events before the impacts.

So to be very clear, when I said:

[...]

I was referring to the NIST report. NCSTAR1. I have not read the 9/11 commission report. I do not know how well it reflects the truth of what happened - particularly regarding the planning of the attacks . I am suspicious of evidence obtained by torture.

I apologize for this misunderstanding.

It was a mistake, not a lie. When I recognized my mistake I explained it to you, and I apologized.

And I'm not at all clear where my supposed lie is regarding my engineer friends?

 

[lee h oswald]

Okay - in the sense that a foot represents a constant downwards force exerting directional force on all objects to a central point, how does that not represent gravity?

In that case swing a sixteen pound sledgehammer at a can and that represents gravity too. Except it doesn't, does it?

 

[Mick West]

And looking back at one of the "lies" you quote:

Building 7 wtc wasn't even mentioned in the Commission report - so how can you say that it's a reasonable account of what happened?

I mean that the things that the commission report says are reasonable. The NIST reports give more details, and includes WTC 7 in considerable depth.

That was nearly two years ago, but I'm pretty sure that in that particular instance I was referring to the FEMA report.

I make mistakes, but I do not lie. That would defeat the entire purpose of what I'm trying to do here.

 

[Mick West]

In that case swing a sixteen pound sledgehammer at a can and that represents gravity too. Except it doesn't, does it?

It's a problem of scale. A can will support 1000 times it's own weight. But WTC7 could probably only support an additional 1 or 2 times its own weigh (and probably less than 1).

So to to simulate gravity relative to the strength of the structure, a much larger weight is needed. WTC7 is simulated with a large static load (me standing on it). WTC1/2 might be better simulated with a large dynamic load, such as a sledgehammer - representing the falling upper block.

You can do the math to see roughly how much additional weight is required for a more accurate simulation. Of course there are other factors to consider - but yes, a sledgehammer could represent gravity at that scale.

 

[lee h oswald]

Ah yes, sorry. But your original mention seemed to suggest that the load bearing structure was brick.

Well yes, but my first post back (#452 just above) says that I'm wrong - twice - but it doesn't change the fact that 'that's why we don't build tall buildings in brick' is wrong.

So we're both wrong then, yes? Trying to make some kind of capital from this is a bit on the rich side. If people go about claiming 'that's why we don't make tall buildings from brick', when one of the world's tallest buildings is made from brick, then it's just wrong, isn't it? No excuses, mitigations, misunderstandings - just wrong.
Also, to say that the brickwork is non-loadbearing isn't exactly right either - even though my imagined system is still wrong (that the gravity loads were borne at least partially on the brickwork) - because there are other loads to consider, such as torsion and wind/lateral loading, which the brickwork needs to resist in tandem with the steel frame it is tied to. So it's wrong to call it cladding, because although the brickwork may not bear the load of the steel frame (and therefore the gravity load), it is still structural.

[/QUOTE]

 

[lee h oswald]

And regarding my "lies" above. I explained at the time that I confused the 9/11 commission report with the NIST report. I even explain that in the bits you just quoted. So what was the lie? I was actually quite embarrassed to have gone on so long under this misconception. My excuse was that I was quite new to the 9/11 debunking world at the time. Here's my mea culpa post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-...-a-progressive-collapse.364/page-13#post-9533

It was a mistake, not a lie. When I recognized my mistake I explained it to you, and I apologized.

And I'm not at all clear where my supposed lie is regarding my engineer friends?

On 911 Commission Report (and after multiple references to it):

I mean that the things that the commission report says are reasonable. The NIST reports give more details, and includes WTC 7 in considerable depth.

If one confuses one thing for another, then how can one then make comparisons between the two?

On engineer friends:

I said that because I know engineers, and if they saw something wrong [in the Nist report], they would point it out.

vs

I don't have any qualified engineer pals

Diametrically opposed statements - at least one isn't true.

[Edit: Maybe we should just let this lie]

 

[Mick West]

If one confuses one thing for another, then how can one then make comparisons between the two?

I was comparing the FEMA report (which is what I thought the 9/11 commission report was then) to the NIST reports.

On engineer friends:

Diametrically opposed statements - at least one isn't true.

Not at all, because the second statement was specifically about Verinage.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-rate-of-fall-rate-of-crush.1142/page-6#post-26588

 

[lee h oswald]

It's a problem of scale. A can will support 1000 times it's own weight. But WTC7 could probably only support an additional 1 or 2 times its own weigh (and probably less than 1).

So to to simulate gravity relative to the strength of the structure, a much larger weight is needed. WTC7 is simulated with a large static load (me standing on it). WTC1/2 might be better simulated with a large dynamic load, such as a sledgehammer - representing the falling upper block.

You can do the math to see roughly how much additional weight is required for a more accurate simulation. Of course there are other factors to consider - but yes, a sledgehammer could represent gravity at that scale.

Bottom line: tin cans and high rise buildings aren't comparable. Let's not waste another second entertaining any idea it might be useful in the context.

 

[lee h oswald]

I was comparing the FEMA report (which is what I thought the 9/11 commission report was then) to the NIST reports.



Not at all, because the second statement was specifically about Verinage.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-rate-of-fall-rate-of-crush.1142/page-6#post-26588

Always an equivocation/excuse/misdirection. It appears as some weird pathology - absolute and intractable. People can read what they want into it - but that's enough for me.

 

[Mick West]

Bottom line: tin cans and high rise buildings aren't comparable. Let's not waste another second entertaining any idea it might be useful in the context.

But the reasons they are not directly comparable are very important. Oxy makes comparisons of a tree or a brick wall to WTC7.

The aluminum soda cans (not tin/steel cans, they a bit too strong) demonstrate certain involved principles, like buckling and the difference between static and dynamic loads. You can't make a direct comparison, but you can discuss the reasons why they are not directly comparable, and what the actual mathematical/physical differences are, and how you could simulate it better by increasing the load.

Richard Gage has a classic example here of using a scale model and NOT accounting for scale.

 

[Mick West]

Always an equivocation/excuse/misdirection. It appears as some weird pathology - absolute and intractable. People can read what they want into it - but that's enough for me.

I'm fine leaving it at that. If people are interested, they can read the posts linked above. I just confused which report was which. Not a lie, a mistake.

 

[lee h oswald]

This is more relevant than tin cans - as context on what kind of organisation/govt. agency we're dealing with in Nist

http://epic.org/crypto/dss/new_nist_nsa_revelations.html

New NIST/NSA Revelations

Less than three weeks after the White House announced a
controversial initiative to secure the nation's electronic
communications with government-approved cryptography, newly
released documents raise serious questions about the process that
gave rise to the administration's proposal. The documents,
released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit,
suggest that the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA)
dominates the process of establishing security standards for
civilian computer systems in contravention of the intent of
legislation Congress enacted in 1987.

The released material concerns the development of the
Digital Signature Standard (DSS), a cryptographic method for
authenticating the identity of the sender of an electronic
communication and for authenticating the integrity of the data in
that communication. NIST publicly proposed the DSS in August 1991
and initially made no mention of any NSA role in developing the
standard, which was intended for use in unclassified, civilian
communications systems. NIST finally conceded that NSA had, in
fact, developed the technology after Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility (CPSR) filed suit against the agency for
withholding relevant documents. The proposed DSS was widely
criticized within the computer industry for its perceived weak
security and inferiority to an existing authentication technology
known as the RSA algorithm. Many observers have speculated that
the RSA technique was disfavored by NSA because it was, in fact,
more secure than the NSA-proposed algorithm and because the RSA
technique could also be used to encrypt data very securely.

The newly-disclosed documents -- released in heavily censored
form at the insistence of NSA -- suggest that NSA was not merely
involved in the development process, but dominated it. NIST and
NSA worked together on the DSS through an intra-agency Technical
Working Group (TWG). The documents suggest that the NIST-NSA
relationship was contentious, with NSA insisting upon secrecy
throughout the deliberations. A NIST report dated January 31,
1990, states that

The members of the TWG acknowledged that the efforts
expended to date in the determination of a public key
algorithm which would be publicly known have not been
successful. It's increasingly evident that it is
difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the concerns
and requirements of NSA, NIST and the general public
through using this approach.

The civilian agency's frustration is also apparent in a July
21, 1990, memo from the NIST members of the TWG to NIST director
John W. Lyons. The memo suggests that "national security"
concerns hampered efforts to develop a standard:

THE NIST/NSA Technical Working Group (TWG) has held 18
meetings over the past 13 months. A part of every
meeting has focused on the NIST intent to develop a
Public Key Standard Algorithm Standard. We are
convinced that the TWG process has reached a point where
continuing discussions of the public key issue will
yield only marginal results. Simply stated, we believe
that over the past 13 months we have explored the
technical and national security equity issues to the
point where a decision is required on the future
direction of digital signature standards.

An October 19, 1990, NIST memo discussing possible patent issues
surrounding DSS noted that those questions would need to be
addressed "if we ever get our NSA problem settled."

Although much of the material remains classified and withheld
from disclosure, the "NSA problem" was apparently the intelligence
agency's demand that perceived "national security" considerations
take precedence in the development of the DSS. From the outset,
NSA cloaked the deliberations in secrecy. For instance, at the
March 22, 1990, meeting of the TWG, NSA representatives presented
NIST with NSA's classified proposal for a DSS algorithm. NIST's
report of the meeting notes that

The second document, classified TOP SECRET CODEWORD, was
a position paper which discussed reasons for the
selection of the algorithms identified in the first
document. This document is available at NSA for review
by properly cleared senior NIST officials.

In other words, NSA presented highly classified material to NIST
justifying NSA's selection of the proposed algorithm -- an
algorithm intended to protect and authenticate unclassified
information in civilian computer systems. The material was so
highly classified that "properly cleared senior NIST officials"
were required to view the material at NSA's facilities.

These disclosures are disturbing for two reasons. First, the
process as revealed in the documents contravenes the intent of
Congress embodied in the Computer Security Act of 1987. Through
that legislation, Congress intended to remove NSA from the process
of developing civilian computer security standards and to place
that responsibility with NIST, a civilian agency. Congress
expressed a particular concern that NSA, a military intelligence
agency, would improperly limit public access to information in a
manner incompatible with civilian standard setting. The House
Report on the legislation noted that NSA's

natural tendency to restrict and even deny access to
information that it deems important would disqualify
that agency from being put in charge of the protection
of non-national security information in the view of many
officials in the civilian agencies and the private
sector.

While the Computer Security Act contemplated that NSA would
provide NIST with "technical assistance" in the development of
civilian standards, the newly released documents demonstrate that
NSA has crossed that line and dominates the development process.

The second reason why this material is significant is because
of what it reveals about the process that gave rise to the so-
called "Clipper" chip proposed by the administration earlier this
month. Once again, NIST was identified as the agency actually
proposing the new encryption technology, with "technical
assistance" from NSA. Once again, the underlying information
concerning the development process is classified. DSS was the
first test of the Computer Security Act's division of labor
between NIST and NSA. Clipper comes out of the same
"collaborative" process. The newly released documents suggest
that NSA continues to dominate the government's work on computer
security and to cloak the process in secrecy, contrary to the
clear intent of Congress.

On the day the Clipper initiative was announced, CPSR
submitted FOIA requests to key agencies -- including NIST and NSA
-- for information concerning the proposal. CPSR will pursue
those requests, as well as the pending litigation concerning NSA
involvement in the development of the Digital Signature Standard.
Before any meaningful debate can occur on the direction of
cryptography policy, essential government information must be made
public -- as Congress intended when it passed the Computer
Security Act. CPSR is committed to that goal.

************************************************
David L. Sobel
CPSR Legal Counsel
(202) 544-9240
dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org

So we can find out 25 years after the fact (via foia and lawsuits) that Nist was
seconded/coerced into 'national security framework' requirements of secrecy and
cover-up with/by the NSA, no less.

 

[Mick West]

That article about cryptography is from 1993. It is not new. Nothing to do with the current discussion.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.society.privacy/2BPKooXQ5X4

 

[lee h oswald]

That article about cryptography is from 1993. It is not new. Nothing to do with the current discussion.

Maybe I was a bit too obtuse, my fault. I think it's more relevant than tin cans, even after all this time -

 

[Mick West]

I know people don't trust official reports. I try to discuss just independently verifiable physics where possible.

 

[lee h oswald]

But how much energy does it take to divert the unleashed energy and momentum of falling building to the side, rather than succumb to its force, adding to it it in the process, that takes it straight down? Much more than is present in the compromised structure of WTC7.
And the building did go down and not to the side, so why are you saying it shouldn't have?

But how much energy does it take to divert the unleashed energy and momentum of falling building to the side

It takes a bit of resistance in one place greater or less than a bit of resistance in another place - then it starts to get uneven, assymmetrical - and as the damage was assymmetrical - that's what the starting point should be. Anyway, maybe ask wtc1 or 2 wtf happened? Quite amazing that all three structures suffered catastrophic failures - down to the ground and two of them pulverised - and in two different fashions, all with assymmetrical damage and yet all were pretty much symmetrical in their demise. What a bleedin' coincidence!

Much more than is present in the compromised structure of WTC7

That's a bold assertion; not so much as a question mark.

And the building did go down and not to the side, so why are you saying it shouldn't have?

Because all previous experiment, activation and long-term use of such designs, all previous observations, all previous scientific experience, ie. science, says that what happened (as explained by the establishment) is unprecedented. There is no precedent. And not just once but thrice - and all on one day! Blimey! Try asking the same question internally, but sub 'shouldn't' for 'should'.

 

[Mick West]

Quite amazing that all three structures suffered catastrophic failures - down to the ground and two of them pulverised - and in two different fashions, all with assymmetrical damage and yet all were pretty much symmetrical in their demise. What a bleedin' coincidence!

It's a coincidence that they were not all the same?

It hardly seems a coincidence that the towers collapsed in the same way, when they were both hit in very similar manners by 767s. Why would you expect them to be different?

 

[lee h oswald]

I know people don't trust official reports. I try to discuss just independently verifiable physics where possible.

Then stop relying on the Nist Reports. Unverifiable and therefore unfalsifiable offerings are not considered scientific; not by real sceptics. And physics is just a subset of the event that was 911.

 

[lee h oswald]

It's a coincidence that they were not all the same?

It hardly seems a coincidence that the towers collapsed in the same way, when they were both hit in very similar manners by 767s. Why would you expect them to be different?

Not dancing round in coincidental circles again. It's obvious what's wrong to the honest, open eye.

 

[Mick West]

Then stop relying on the Nist Reports. Unverifiable and therefore unfalsifiable offerings are not considered scientific; not by real sceptics. And physics is just a subset of the event that was 911.

I'm not relying on them. They are useful reference though, especially the section on the spread of the fire, and the visual analysis of the collapse. Everything in those sections is independently verifiable.

Physics might be a subset, but its the subset I'm debunking. If the collapse of the building was a result of the impact and fire, then that radically changes the interpretation of events (vs. demolition with explosives).

 

[Mick West]

Not dancing round in coincidental circles again. It's obvious what's wrong to the honest, open eye.

What's that then?

 

[lee h oswald]

It's a coincidence that they were not all the same?

It hardly seems a coincidence that the towers collapsed in the same way, when they were both hit in very similar manners by 767s. Why would you expect them to be different?

I'll start deconstructing these if they carry on.

 

[lee h oswald]

What's that then?

After all this time and all those posts, we're supposed to start from scratch? What does that say?