WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
you could also hear explosives going off (from what I've researched these buildings didn't have gas lines). The guy filming even mentions explosions. I have a good idea of what happened that day.

So, whats your point?

You hear loud bangs- several minutes after the building fell- is the only explanation that they were "explosives"?

if they are explosives are you insinuating that they are bombs?

Are bombs they only possible explanation for loud bangs during a catastrophic collapse of a building?
 
So, whats your point?

You hear loud bangs- several minutes after the building fell- is the only explanation that they were "explosives"?

if they are explosives are you insinuating that they are bombs?

Are bombs they only possible explanation for loud bangs during a catastrophic collapse of a building?

How did this guy know the buildings fell from office fires so soon? and why was he using terms like "ground zero." The Pentagon was under attack too remember?

What were all those explosions? Those buildings didn't even have gas lines correct?
 
What were all those explosions? Those buildings didn't even have gas lines correct?

Do you think there is any combustible material in a modern day office building?

Can you honestly say the only possible reason for the loud noises are bombs?

"logic" remember?
 
And round and round it goes....

Another thread full of rabid denialism and non-sensical appeals to 'logic', when logic is so clearly lacking in the ra-ra defence of so many aspects of the official conspiracy theory. Possibly the worst on offer being the reliance on Nist's incomplete account of what happened to building 7, and indeed what happened to the towers. Denialists, or 'Faithers' are not going to change their minds - their minds are made up - they have an advocate position, much like a lawyer; they are so deeply sunk in the effluent of the official narratives, and have invested so much energy in defending them, they're not going to change their minds now. Whatever the reason for the entrenchment and unwillingness to discuss honestly what is so apparent, it's still a wonder they can do it with a straight face. Undoubtedly some are paid to keep trotting out the official line (King Canute comes to mind; and the tide is rising inexorably on your false memes), others may simply not understand the mechanics, but by far the largest group are those unable to come to terms with what it means to their 'world view'. To accept that Daddy (the State, or elements thereof) is a liar and a murderer isn't that easy for most people, especially reasonably well off, 'educated' middle class people who have a vested (and deep psychological) interest in the status quo being left unmolested. Despite the fact that there are many examples of the State being very much a liar and a murderer, people who do not wish to see do not see. They become angry, defensive, insulting....their world view is being attacked and they're going to defend it by turning to places of poor information and dishonesty that support their view and bolster it, it's how propaganda works, what it relies on - and after one hundred years of study of human psychology, it's a quite formidable hurdle to overcome. But it's not impossible, not at all.

All official 'investigations' into the three collapses ceased their inquiry at the moment of collapse initiation - that is, they didn't even to attempt to explain the actual collapses or the mechanisms therein, they simply ignored them with the trite statement that once collapse had been initiated, 'progressive collapse' was 'inevitable'. Which is a dereliction of duty and a falsehood (and leads to the repetition of the incorrect 'once one floor fails, progressive collapse is inevitable' false meme). I expect the reality of that (non) decision was that it was recognized that there was no way they could follow the buildings down to the ground and come up with a viable explanation for why there was virtually nothing left of the concrete, wallboard, furniture, office and plant equipment etc in the towers' diminutive (comparatively) rubble pile. Never mind trying to explain the pulverization of all that concrete, not just once but twice, and the projectile nature of large quantities of steel, not once but twice - despite unique and assymetric damage in each individual tower. And then ofcourse there's the classic demolition of wtc7 - a completely different animal to the collapses of the towers which were torn asunder before they had a chance to reach the ground; erupted in almost complete dissociation of the components of the buildings and their contents. One only needs to watch the videos with an honest open mind and it's very obvious that is the case. I can't say I know what caused that, but I know what it wasn't - it wasn't just a 'gravity' collapse. That's evident, no need for circular arguments or large cut and pastes with erroneous words attached.

Describing the collapse of 7 in the terms that the entire inside structure of the building fell first and then the 'skin' came down after, just tells you how little the people who cite this know about how buildings work. Buildings do not have skin, for starters. And the whole building collapsed as a result of one steel member being subject to thermal expansion so that it was displaced from its seat. I can tell you one thing - they don't build them like that any more - and they never did. This is the result of Nist's guessing, looking at pictures and listening to witnesses (but only if they agree with the os) and then coming up with a flashy cartoon without any figures to back it up in order to present some explanation which relates to what happened - science done back to front is bad science - in fact, it's not science at all to start with a conclusion and work your way back over it to come to the desired (and preconceived) aim and method. Never mind taking over seven years to come up with nothing of any value to the truth of it, the value is in the deception.

I said recently in another thread that every child, before their first (and every subsequent) maths exam, knows they must show their calculations or the result will be an F. There is no exception to this rule. You can write down all the answers, every one of them correct, 100%, but if you don't show how you arrived at the answer it's an F. There's a good reason for this and it's this: good science relies upon those performing it to share their workings, so everyone can see how answers were reached; knowing without showing doesn't advance things - so kids learn this from the start with the rule that you must show how you arrived at the answer so it can be seen you've done things correctly. Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin - none of them hid their calculations, they shared them with their peers so collective progress could be achieved. Mick, you're constantly referring to 'checking the maths', but with the Nist report on 7 you can't 'check the maths' because Nist say it 'might jeopardize public safey' and won't show it to you (I wonder what you'd say if some party on the other side of this argument said they had the answer - but wouldn't share their calculations to show how they arrived at their conclusion?). I don't understand how you then hold up Nist's conclusion (that normal offices fires caused 7 to collapse like it did) as a viable answer for any of it, when it so obviously denies the very basic scientific requirement of showing their calculations - the calculations that lead to their 'answer'. That's an F. The 'public safety' argument is risible. It's a necessary lie to hide the calculations which one must conclude are of dubious accuracy and likely incorrect. Public safety was seriously compromised on that day - the release of data on the performance of commonly used building materials can not be a risk to public safety, conversely the withholding of that data could well lead to public safety issues, obviously. Like so many other things round here, Nist has it completely back to front. Using Nist as your crutch seriously demeans your position.
 
Here's the collapse with the damage corner. You can see the damage on the lower right here, and you can see how it causes the final collapse of the skin to be be more symmetrical.


And here it is with NO damage. You can see the building skin sags in on itself, because the right side holds up a lot longer.


LOL... Is that a Pixar production or Disney

Or is it the old 'Ill cover it with a curtain so you can't see what's going on' trick?

Honestly, it happened just like that but you couldn't see it until the skin fell!
 
Why don't you show me your calculations then?

NIST provides an explanation. I'm not just relying on their word that it is correct. I'm relying on the fact that 99.99% of the world community of structural engineers seems to think it's a perfectly plausible and likely explanation.

Unless you can actually show why it's NOT plausible, then I've no reason to believe you over NIST and the 99.99%.
 
99.99% of engineers agree? and their data for the model isn't even public. LOL.

This was aired on cable television in NY a couple years ago. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

 
And round and round it goes....

Another thread full of rabid denialism and non-sensical appeals to 'logic',

But that is what it's all about Lee... The deniers will go on and on and on remorselessly trotting out the same old bunk with their shields firmly locked together like a Roman Legion in the hopes that we get fed up listening to it and then they can settle down to trotting out 'how silly these conspiracy theorists are' so that anyone coming on the site who is not too clued up will say 'mmmm that sounds reasonable... all these nice debunkers have all the answers... they must be right'.

Only problem is... it is very entertaining so I'm happy to keep going lol... unless I get banned which to be fair doesn't seem likely.
 
See the AE991 folk are just a tiny tiny fraction of the worlds Architects and engineers. They are are (to be very generous) the 0.01%.

These architects and engineers are just the ones who are actively campaigning for a proper investigation. You cannot simply infer that all the rest "agree with NIST".

You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false.
 
And round and round it goes....

Another thread full of rabid denialism and non-sensical appeals to 'logic', when logic is so clearly lacking in the ra-ra defence of so many aspects of the official conspiracy theory. Possibly the worst on offer being the reliance on Nist's incomplete account of what happened to building 7, and indeed what happened to the towers. Denialists, or 'Faithers' are not going to change their minds - their minds are made up

Vast generalizations borne of spite are almost assuredly a fail.

Do not take it personally that they have a different opinion than you and nothing you have uttered has caused them to change their mind..
 
These architects and engineers are just the ones who are actively campaigning for a proper investigation. You cannot simply infer that all the rest "agree with NIST". You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false.
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-architects-in-the-us/ says 233,000 http://www.numberof.net/number-of-engineers-in-the-usa/ says 2,495,000 https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth states that more than 1700 demand an investigation. add it up and you get %0.062.
 
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-architects-in-the-us/ says 233,000 http://www.numberof.net/number-of-engineers-in-the-usa/ says 2,495,000 https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth states that more than 1700 demand an investigation. add it up and you get %0.062.

I think you have just done the same as Mick, deducted the number of architects and engineers who are actively campaigning for an independent inquiry into 9/11 from the total number of available architects and engineers and inferred the remainder agree with NIST and then stated it as a fact that they do agree.

Unless they actually state they agree, it would be totally disingenuous/fraudulent to state they agree 'on their behalf'

We had this earlier when I failed to respond quick enough to a point and someone inferred that as my 'Tacit Agreement'... it wasn't.

This seems to be a well used ploy... it is fraudulent.

If you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, you cannot infer the rest of the population agree with the opposing view.
 
I think you have just done the same as Mick, deducted the number of architects and engineers who are actively campaigning for an independent inquiry into 9/11 from the total number of available architects and engineers and inferred the remainder agree with NIST and then stated it as a fact that they do agree.

Unless they actually state they agree, it would be totally disingenuous/fraudulent to state they agree 'on their behalf'

We had this earlier when I failed to respond quick enough to a point and someone inferred that as my 'Tacit Agreement'... it wasn't.

This seems to be a well used ploy... it is fraudulent.

If you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, you cannot infer the rest of the population agree with the opposing view.

Founded in 2006 and all they can get is 1700 signatures. Yeah I think we can draw some conclusions.
 
These architects and engineers are just the ones who are actively campaigning for a proper investigation. You cannot simply infer that all the rest "agree with NIST".

You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false.

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.

Oxy, perhaps you'd like to get into some figures, if lee is not willing? Can you state a problem with what happened that involves numbers?
 
Founded in 2006 and all they can get is 1700 signatures. Yeah I think we can draw some conclusions.

LOL... You should apply to work for NIST

That's why I say... is it a good idea to keep silent?

So when you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, your brain says... "Uh...everyone else must disagree with them or they would all be demonstrating, no problem here."

Did it not cross your mind that many are frightened to support something like that in case they can't get new contracts or something?
 
LOL... You should apply to work for NIST

That's why I say... is it a good idea to keep silent?

So when you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, your brain says... "Uh...everyone else must disagree with them or they would all be demonstrating, no problem here."

Did it not cross your mind that many are frightened to support something like that in case they can't get new contracts or something?

Demonstrating requires making signs, getting in a car, parking, etc. Signing a petition is, well signing a petition. The petition calls for an independent investigation into 9/11. This petition and the organization have been used as evidence that even architects and engineers don't agree with the official account. After almost 7 years in existence all they have is 0.062%.
 
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.

Oxy, perhaps you'd like to get into some figures, if lee is not willing? Can you state a problem with what happened that involves numbers?

Mick, I don't understand why you would go in and edit it, you stated it was 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST '. I was only playing and teasing about your bad choice of words. All you had to do was clarify and retract that, the same as Lee had the good grace to admit he made an error with his waterproof concrete.

What figures are you talking about. NIST refuse to give data?
 
Demonstrating requires making signs, getting in a car, parking, etc. Signing a petition is, well signing a petition. The petition calls for an independent investigation into 9/11. This petition and the organization have been used as evidence that even architects and engineers don't agree with the official account. After almost 7 years in existence all they have is 0.062%.

Yes and signing a petition requires going on the record with your name and other details which may involve repercussions
 
I went to AE911s site, and this was what I saw:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

External Quote:
Here's his profile:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=990704

It lists Smolens as a structural engineer. But then elsewhere we have:

http://www.lopezsmolensengineers.com/jonathan
External Quote:
Jonathan has been a residential Licensed Contractor for 16 years in the states of Colorado and California, giving him a thorough understanding of the building and business practice.He graduated from CU with a degree in Civil Engineering and is now also a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado.As a Structural Engineer, he works in the areas of residential, as well as industrial & commercial design, remodeling and modification of structures. Jonathan specializes in Green Building in all his projects, which include: straw-bale design and construction, adobe, Structural Insulated Panel (SIP’s), Rastra and high efficiency wood and steel construction.
This is typical of the type of people AE911 has. General contractors, builders. People with no experience of tall buildings. Mostly working on one or two story residential projects. Sticking someone up at the top of the page as a structural engineer gives a false sense of authority.

It's actually quite interesting looking at the fill list of quotes in the rotation there. They are seem generally to be just the normal talking points that have been debunked, and some personal incredulity - nothing really technical. This is the best that AE911 has to offer with respect to sound bites.

External Quote:
Steven Dusterwald37-Year S.E. Structural Engineer
"What caught my attention was the rapid failure of connections that had to happen in order for Building 7 to come down at the rate that it did."

Rick Fowlkes
P.E., 40-Year Civil/Structural Engineer
"On Sept. 11 when I saw the Twin Towers coming down, I knew that it had to be controlled demolitions we were witnessing."

Robert McCoy
High-Rise Architect
"I signed the petition for AE911Truth because I felt it was an organization that was trying to get at the truth of what actually brought those buildings down on 9/11."

Roland Angle
P.E., Civil/Structural Engineer

Alfred Lopez
S.E. Structural Engineer


Kamal Obeid
S.E. Structural Engineer
"Structural engineers and other building professionals need to understand that these buildings did not fail the way they are claimed to have failed."

William Brinnier
25-Year Architect
"Not hit by a plane, with small fires and little damage from debris, there was just no logical explanation for Building 7 to come straight down through what was the path of greatest resistance in under 7 seconds."

Dan Barnum
FAIA, High-Rise Architect
"The tops of the buildings were basically disintegrated."

Tom Sullivan
Explosives Technician Former Controlled Demolitions, Inc. Employee
"I knew from day one this was a controlled event. What I saw was a classic implosion. The center of the core; the penthouse area starts to move first, and then the rest of the building follows along with it."

Jody Gibbs
35-Year Architect
"The Twin Towers fell at a speed which can only occur if the vertical structure has been removed."

Richard Humenn
P.E., Original WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer
"Knowing the strength of the structures, it was unbelievable to me that plane impacts and fuel burning would be the only reason for the Twin Towers to collapse. The only way they could have collapsed was if the core columns were compromised."

Frank Cullinan
P.E., Civil Engineer
"It was shocking how fast the buildings collapsed. Tens of thousands of structural connections had to fail not only nearly simultaneously, but in sequential order."

Anthony Szamboti
B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer

Gery Warner
P.E. Mechanical Engineer
"Molten aluminum is silver. It looks like mercury. The molten metal pouring out of the South Tower is indicative of molten iron, not aluminum."

William Rice
P.E., Civil/Structural Engineer
"Watching Building 7 collapse in under 7 seconds, after watching the Twin Towers collapse, I think most anyone would recognize these as controlled demolitions."

Scott Grainger
P.E., Forensic Fire Protection Engineer
"Structural steel frame high-rise buildings simply do not collapse due to fire."

Ed Munyak
P.E., 25-Year Fire Protection and Mechanical Engineer
"Even one global collapse would have been extraordinary, but to have 3 occur in one day was just beyond comprehension."

David Chandler
B.S Physics, M.S. Mathematics
"People with scientific and engineering backgrounds are looking at the 3 WTC collapses, and what they see is very definite evidence of explosive demolition, as opposed to a "natural" catastrophe."

Jerry Lobdill
B.S.Ch.E., Physicist/Chemical Engineer
"All the eyewitness testimony and video evidence supports only controlled demolition as the cause of destruction for all 3 WTC buildings."

Robert Podolsky
M.S., Physicist/Engineer
"All 3 WTC buildings fell way faster than they would have had there been any resistance from the lower part of the building."

Niels Harrit
Ph.D., Chemistry
"A new investigation is needed that includes looking for remaining explosives and thermitic materials in the WTC dust."

Robert Kim Ireland
B.S.Ch.E., Chemical Engineer
"3 buildings collapsed on 9/11 but there were only 2 planes, that means the third building, WTC 7, had to collapse for some other reason."

Jason Cheshire
B.S.Ch.E., Chemical Engineer/Metallurgist
"1400º hot spots at the WTC for over a week indicates that there was something very hot going on below the surface."

Kathy McGrade
B.S., Materials Engineering
"In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel."

Mark Basile
B.S.Ch.E., 25 Years in Materials Analysis
"I’ve independently seen thermitic activity within 2 separate independent samples of world trade center dust. All of the characteristics of the micro-spheres tell me that thermite was used in melting those steel beams."

Adam Parrott
B.S.Ch.E., Chemical Engineering
"When the USGS collected samples of the World Trade Center dust, they found the presence of these microspheres of iron in all of the samples. The USGS does not have a valid explanation for the presence of these iron microspheres."

Jeffrey Farrer
Ph.D., Materials Science Engineer / M.S. Physics


"Our conclusions were that the red/gray chips were some form of thermite or nano thermite. The finding of aluminum in the steel samples also supports the theory that thermite was used to melt the steel."

Steven Jones
Ph,D., Physicist, Former Brigham Young Univ. Professor
"Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings. What is this molten metal? Direct evidence of the use of thermite."

David Gregg
Ph.D., Chemical Engineer 30 years at Livermore Laboratories
"The only way that’s known that a carbonaceous material can cause steel, or iron oxide to turn into a molten metal is in a blast furnace. And that’s very different than what we had."

Kevin Ryan
B.S. Chemistry, Former Mgr. Underwriters Laboratories
"Thermite -if it was present at the World Trade Center, and created this molten metal that so many witnesses and photographic evidence shows would also explain potentially the fact that fires could not be put out at Ground Zero."

Bob Bowman
Ph.D., Lt. Col. USAF Ret.
"When I saw the Twin towers fall down I knew this could not happen, those airplanes and those fires could not cause the buildings to come down the way they did."

Lynn Margulis
Ph.D, Professor, University of MA
"The WTC buildings came down because they were very carefully controlled demolitions with high-explosives that had to be planted many weeks, if not months, in advance."

Steve Luce
Former US Army Combat Engineer
"The ejection of building materials out of the sides of the buildings, and the manner and speed at which they fell, exhibited all the signs of controlled demolition."

Les Young
High-Rise Architect
"Building 7 had not been hit by a plane. The fact that it fell in on itself in just six seconds in a classic controlled-demolition fashion left no doubt in my mind that something was wrong."

Steve Barasch
High-Rise Architect
"Buildings just don’t behave like that. If floors fall, they tend to fall and are braced by the floor directly beneath it. And there is some delay there."

Ronald Brookman
S.E. Structural Engineer


Joel Miller
Architect
"It appears to me that there’s compelling evidence that all three of the world trade center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. There is not only video evidence, but there is physical evidence as well."

Erik Lawyer
Firefighter
"There were all kinds of firefighters and civilians that were reporting explosions. Just the fact that there were explosions means they need to be investigated."

Michael Donly
P.E. 14-year Structural Engineer
"There’s not enough time for the building to collapse in the way NIST tells us it collapsed."

Jonathan Smolens
S.E. Structural Engineer
"A building cannot do free fall with a huge steel structural system in place to support it without being blown up."

David Topete
S.E. Structural Engineer


Casey Pfeiffer
S.E. Structural Engineer
"Even if a floor were to collapse it still wouldn’t be able to collapse all of the connections simultaneously at the rate that it did without secondary explosions."

Harry Robinson III
FAIA, Architect
"The destruction was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to come apart as they did."

William Cundiff
P.E., Structural Engineer
"The speed at which the buildings fell should be the most obvious and least technical indication that explosives were used. Most engineers as well as non-technical people should be able to grasp this."

Kevin Kelly
FAIA, Architect
"The presentation made by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at the AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new investigation into the destruction of the 3 skyscrapers on 9/11/01 would be worthwhile."

Pedro Buccellato
High-Rise Architect
"I believe that all the evidence made available by AE911Truth proves beyond any doubt that explosives were used to bring down the towers as many people concluded from the outset, simply from visual evidence and knowledge of basic physics."
It would be an interesting exercise to contact all these headliners, and see if they still stand behind those statements, and if they can expand upon them.
 
Mick, I don't understand why you would go in and edit it, you stated it was 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST '. I was only playing and teasing about your bad choice of words. All you had to do was clarify and retract that, the same as Lee had the good grace to admit he made an error with his waterproof concrete.

What figures are you talking about. NIST refuse to give data?

I didn't edit anything. I said:

NIST provides an explanation. I'm not just relying on their word that it is correct. I'm relying on the fact that 99.99% of the world community of structural engineers seems to think it's a perfectly plausible and likely explanation.

Unless you can actually show why it's NOT plausible, then I've no reason to believe you over NIST and the 99.99%.

See the word "seems" in there?

The figures I'm taking about are any figures that you think are evidence of controlled demolition. For example, lee thinks that some steel beams were moving too fast. So the figures there would be the speed of the steel beams. We can work that out from video. We can do math to see what explanations fit the observed reality. We could see how much explosive it would take to throw a steel bam through the air. We can see if a steel beam falling in a progressive collapse situation would reach those speeds.

Or, we could do some calculations of varying levels of detail as to how much dynamic load the floors could sustain, and what would happen if one floor collapsed. Those kind of figures.

Do you have any?
 
But that is what it's all about Lee... The deniers will go on and on and on remorselessly trotting out the same old bunk with their shields firmly locked together like a Roman Legion in the hopes that we get fed up listening to it and then they can settle down to trotting out 'how silly these conspiracy theorists are' so that anyone coming on the site who is not too clued up will say 'mmmm that sounds reasonable... all these nice debunkers have all the answers... they must be right'.

Only problem is... it is very entertaining so I'm happy to keep going lol... unless I get banned which to be fair doesn't seem likely.

Hahahaha! Same could be said about conspiracy theorists!

Last time I checked, We don't make fun of you for your beliefs, but we easily could.

By this point, if we have given you all of the explanations that we can possible give you, and begin insulting us, this means that there is nothing left to argue, and in return, makes you fall on deaf ears (in denial) 'because it's fun'.
 
http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/hdg/report/windsor1.pdf a hundred-and-fifty page summation of an investigation into the cause, spread, and effect of the Windsor fire, composed and finished the year-of, by the Japanese National Institute of Land and Infrastructure management. Alas its in Japanese, but it seems quite thorough, and English summations of their findings can be dug up I'm sure.

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/I-35W-webPage/Index-35W-Astaneh.html a page from our old friend Astaneh-Asl, who was a member of the team investigating the Oakland overpass collapse. Here is his report on the event, 10 pages long. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...Paper-Steel_Bridges_June-2008-color-Final.pdf
Now take a look again at the NIST report. http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf It certainly seems a little longer on first glance, but if you actually read through them both side-by-side it becomes obvious how much more specific and detailed the investigation of the bridge-collapse was. This was the very same bridge collapse after which he made his comment about molten steel at the WTC, I believe.
Here's another link to another scientist's examination of the bridge collapse
http://www.imechanica.org/files/ballarini and okazaki the city the river the bridge essay.pdf
and another one
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...gFKFLngGZnmhtSv8LPrkOTA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.aWM
and the final, 178 page report as composed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/ntsb/finalreport.pdf

Seems both events have been investigated forensically to a rather thorough extent, and the information on those forensic investigations seems to be readily available to the public. Of these three incidents, WTC 7 seems to be the subject of the least thorough investigation, albeit the computer-model from NIST is unique amongst them. Perhaps if the data on that simulation weren't confidential, it would shed a bit more light on the investigative process surrounding building 7, and reveal it to not be as comparatively inadequate as it seems. Unfortunately it is.

Grieves, Just wanted to revisit this point - where you say that somehow the report is inadequate. I was just reading NCSTAR 1-9, and was struck by just how rigorous it seems to be. It's 731 page, and packs with all kinds of technical analysis. I wonder if this in any way answers your criticism above?

Link is to an unlocked version you can cut-and-paste from.
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
 
Last edited:
I went to AE911s site, and this was what I saw:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

It would be an interesting exercise to contact all these headliners, and see if they still stand behind those statements, and if they can expand upon them.

Below is the official NIST 'fact sheet'. I find the vast majority of these statements as highly contentious and fallacious but I highlight a few. I have extracted some recommendations.

I am unable to find even one instance where a high rise building has been retrofitted according to those recommendations. I would find this very telling even if I could find only a dozen or so but not to be able to find one... well!

Considering the high number of high rise buildings in use; can you show instances where this retrofitting has taken place?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
External Quote:
Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

  • More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.
  • Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.
  • Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.
  • Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.
  • Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

NIST is recommending that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety to prevent structural collapse even during infrequent building fires like those in WTC 7 when sprinklers do not function, do not exist, or are overwhelmed by fire.
This is particularly spurious given that they refused to test for explosives and destroyed evidence as quickly as possible.


External Quote:
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
If thermite had been used and found, (which some say it has been), any evidential residue could, and has, easily been dismissed with the following statement and also provides, apparently' justification for not testing for thermite residue presence.

External Quote:
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.
 
As to explosions... there were plenty of people who witnessed them... as can be heard on this video.

The characterization of 'dust puffs' are merely a term that has been utilised to cover up what may otherwise more usually be described as evidence of explosions... which look identical?

According to this video, there are over ten thousand Architects and Engineers who have registered concerns as to the NIST findings which is far more than some on this site would have us believe.

Building 7 exhibits no similarity to verinage as it appears to fall, in the main, from the bottom. Very conveniently... like a magic trick... the explanation is given that it had 'already collapsed internally' and what we saw was merely 'the skin falling'.

Firemen give evidence of rivers of molten steel but these testimonies are ignored and denied.

[video]http://911speakout.org/[/video]
 
As to explosions... there were plenty of people who witnessed them... as can be heard on this video.

The characterization of 'dust puffs' are merely a term that has been utilised to cover up what may otherwise more usually be described as evidence of explosions... which look identical?

Not at all- the expulsion of "dust" from an explosion is indicated by the initial burst containing the most amount of energy. A dust puff from the compression of air actually gets stronger over time as the air is compressed and pushed out. This can be seen on videos of "dust puffs"



Building 7...appears to fall, in the main, from the bottom. Very conveniently... like a magic trick... the explanation is given that it had 'already collapsed internally' and what we saw was merely 'the skin falling'.

How can you say that when very clearly the penthouse- on top- collapses several seconds prior to the rest of the building...it clearly falls into the rest of the building- indicating an internal collapse?
 
As to explosions... there were plenty of people who witnessed them... as can be heard on this video.

The characterization of 'dust puffs' are merely a term that has been utilised to cover up what may otherwise more usually be described as evidence of explosions... which look identical?

According to this video, there are over ten thousand Architects and Engineers who have registered concerns as to the NIST findings which is far more than some on this site would have us believe.

Building 7 exhibits no similarity to verinage as it appears to fall, in the main, from the bottom. Very conveniently... like a magic trick... the explanation is given that it had 'already collapsed internally' and what we saw was merely 'the skin falling'.

Firemen give evidence of rivers of molten steel but these testimonies are ignored and denied.

[video]http://911speakout.org/[/video]

I don't think it is necessarily useful to discuss how many experts support what. For example, ideas like Ancient Aliens have amusement parks and large support bases of experts and other citizens but so much of what it claims is so factually inaccurate or blatantly untrue that you wonder what the experts who support it have studied all their life. What matters is the evidence. If the evidence checks out then the number of supporters does not matter. Fact check, fact check, fact check. Just something to consider in future discussions.
 
Not at all- the expulsion of "dust" from an explosion is indicated by the initial burst containing the most amount of energy. A dust puff from the compression of air actually gets stronger over time as the air is compressed and pushed out. This can be seen on videos of "dust puffs"

I cannot identify that phenomena in the 9/11 collapses

How can you say that when very clearly the penthouse- on top- collapses several seconds prior to the rest of the building...it clearly falls into the rest of the building- indicating an internal collapse?
Ah... that's why I said, 'in the main'. The fact that the penthouse collapsed a second or two before the main collapse could be attributed... if one wished... to a number of different reasons, one of which could be inferior structural integrity due to it's position.

Here is the video link as the previous link only takes to website.

 
I cannot identify that phenomena in the 9/11 collapses

Its hard to see when looking straight a squib/puff- you really need a side on view to see it.

This video has one isolated nicely.

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

there are several in this video- in particular at approx the 1:15 point- don't let your emotions be swayed by the ominous chanting choir :)






Ah... that's why I said, 'in the main'. The fact that the penthouse collapsed a second or two before the main collapse could be attributed... if one wished... to a number of different reasons, one of which could be inferior structural integrity due to it's position.

Actually, to be honest, I think it is more like 4 or 5 seconds.
 
Its hard to see when looking straight a squib/puff- you really need a side on view to see it.

The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs.

Can you source any, (other than 9/11 :)), attributed to compression?
 
The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs.


sorry- I completely disagree with you.

Think about the behavior of a puff of smoke from an explosion- initial burst of energy which quickly dissipates.

Now think the air being released from a hole in a bike tire being squeezed by hand. (or maybe water from a squirt gun?)

You can CLEARLY see material being ejected and the energy increasing and/or continuing after the initial burst.

Entirely inconsistent with a squib.
 
sorry- I completely disagree with you.

Think about the behavior of a puff of smoke from an explosion- initial burst of energy which quickly dissipates.

Now think the air being released from a hole in a bike tire being squeezed by hand. (or maybe water from a squirt gun?)

You can CLEARLY see material being ejected and the energy increasing and/or continuing after the initial burst.

Entirely inconsistent with a squib.

I am not being deliberately obtuse, merely acknowledging that I personally cannot differentiate between the two. As I said, if I google compression puffs, I can find nothing visually which can be compared to squibs going off.

Any CIA monitors out there, perhaps the CIA could put up some you tube video showing compression puffs for comparison purposes to convince the skeptics :)
 
Is the only possible way for you to understand is by watching a youtube video?

Or can you think abut the dynamics involved of compressed air and its potential behavior...and infer a difference.


If you must- this is as close as I could get- but I only looked for 30 seconds :)

 
Is the only possible way for you to understand is by watching a youtube video?

Or can you think abut the dynamics involved of compressed air and its potential behavior...and infer a difference.

I can assimilate the theory and I agree it sounds reasonable but I cannot visually differentiate between the two. Non technically, I would imagine a squib to be more localised than a 'compression puff'... i.e. a compression puff taking out a whole window or series of windows or other weak points.
 
The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs

Can you source any, (other than 9/11 :)), attributed to compression?

you mean apart from a bunch of verinage videos you have already been shown but have apparently forgotten?

A couple of reminders:



 
you mean apart from a bunch of verinage videos you have already been shown but have apparently forgotten?

A couple of reminders:





How could I possibly forget the perennial verinage technique:)

As I said... "Non technically, I would imagine a squib to be more localised than a 'compression puff'... i.e. a compression puff taking out a whole window or series of windows or other weak points."

These videos endorse what I say. The 'puffs' on 9/11 were much much more local... more like squibs going off, agreed?
 
No - not that I recall.

Given that the WTC walls were not actually knocked down by verinage (which demolishes a whole floor worth of walls at once) the compressed air inside the tower is going to exit the weakest point first - not everywhere all at once.

And IMO the localised puffs that do appear in various videos look exactly like that happening - they are a relatively long-lasting "jet", whereas demolition "squib" puffs are "explosive" - they happen all at once.

Further, squibs are SMALL explosives - they could not do much more than break a window in a large building, and cerainly not cut significant structural steel.

For moer in depth analysis of this damp squib nonsense see here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top