George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Interesting thesis . . . accepting past fabrications and going on with your life is evidence 911 is no longer important or relevant . . .
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
F4Jock
Senior Member.
It's a distinct possibility. Happens every day in other cases. Given the attention span ascribed to most Americans not out of the question and, if you believe the percentages in the polls cited, very likely. OR ....As I posited, most think that while something(s) are being hidden, they aren't of sufficient magnitude to motivate them further. No matter: The result is the same.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Which is completely without relevance, George. How do you justify returning to irrelevance like a dog to its vomit?
Opinion bears no relevance to physical events. A well-aimed bullet will kill you even if you don't like the idea. No amount of desire or will is going to deflect that bullet.
Oxy has nothing to say about what happened physically to WTC7.
The gist of 911 truth boils down to "they are clever bastards who have conned us because they're greedy and power-crazed".
"They" probably have, in other ways, inside and out of 911, but the onus is to get this particular job proven.
To do specific tasks is easy. The hard part is understanding what has to be done. In the case of WTC7, if the argument is "They rigged the building to collapse." then the immediate question is "Why would they have to do that?" If the answer to that is "They wanted to destroy information, and steal the gold", then the following question would be "but they always had the power to do those things anyway". And the one after that would have to be "Why would you rig a building that only might get hit by a falling tower?"
Just considering this scenario, all these suggestions point to an ever-rising complexity of vagaries. Problematic, energy-hungry, and not a natural state of "least energy". A rabbit hole, as they say, but to infinity. All the while your head is down the hole, your arse is in the air, just asking for someone to kick it. And so they should.
If I showed you an absolutely random pattern of black dots you would eventually find a pattern in it. But it wouldn't mean anything, would it?
Well, the NIST Report on WTC7 is a good report. WTC7 was hit accidentally. WTC7 fell naturally. There's proof. Let's move on.
jomper
Inactive Member
Exactly how much physical evidence from WTC7 did NIST examine again?
Jazzy
Closed Account
I'm happy to help the apparently less capable:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
Just go through it and let me know when you meet opinion rather than evidence.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jazzy,
1) the sufficiency of your evidence (NIST) is based upon its validity . . . meaning it must be complete, unaltered, open for inspection, protected by chain of custody and able to be examined without purpose of evasion or limited by exclusion . . . in other words, it must be transparent . . . otherwise it is invalidated and cannot be used in a court of law. . .
2) the public is the judge and jury of this court and the evidence you keep wanting to use is not admissible in a court of law . . .
3) the Commissioners (the presenters of the evidence) have themselves placed enormous questions on the conduct of the government as well . . . they have impeached the reliability and trustworthiness of the persons this court is suppose to trust . . .
4) the results and the only results this court is able to control is their own opinions and the fore-mentioned Polls show what these opinions are . . .
5) the government has obviously IMO failed in an inept and clumsy way its citizens, its friends and has embolden its enemies.
xenon
Active Member
This very clip was open in another browser window and had just finished playing when I read your post.
[video=youtube_share;KvavRkDIQW8]http://youtu.be/KvavRkDIQW8[/video]
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Short, sweet and to the point . . .
jomper
Inactive Member
What you meant was, NIST didn't examine anything physical from the building.
Seems like a lot of conjecture to me. Exactly what 'evidence' are you referring to in it?
Jazzy, I don't mean to be too critical, we are all human and prone to mistakes but you have asserted many 'facts' on the WTC collapses which are not fact at all but pure conjecture or plain wrong.
i.e. you claimed 'kinetic energy from beams falling 1000ft could cause enough heat to make them red hot', 'molten metal seen running from the wtc was 'not molten steel but molten aluminium', 'that the floors of the wtc's were lightweight concrete' which they were not and that said 'concrete could easily be smashed with a sledge hammer', which is patently untrue.
In short, despite your claims to a scientific engineering background (this is not personal, merely repeating your claims), you have been found to make at least as many speculative claims as any CTist.
joelb79
Active Member
how is that anything different than any conspiracy theory about WTC7 online? They are all conjecture!
A theory is conjecture... The strength of the theory depends on the amount of evidence underpinning it... If and when it is proven, it will no longer be a theory. There are many 'accepted' theories such as evolution, big bang etc There was little evidence underpinning them to start with but it has grown and is growing but there are still very many holes in them nevertheless.
However Jazzy is claiming to exhibit a document containing factual scientific explanations... I suggest this is not true.
joelb79
Active Member
I suggest you are wrong; especially when you are dealing with such sound reporting as the NIST did. And just so you know, I used to be a 9/11 truther of sorts (more of a mimicing questioner who expounded the same 9/11 Truther propoganda without any study myself), but on careful examination of all the facts and theories I am no longer in that 9/11 truth movement questioning camp; and am very passionate just like you about getting people to believe the truth demonstrated through careful factual science like the NIST report. Jazzy has asked you to read the report; I ask you as well. I find it full of actual science; factual at that. I find none of the same information from CT's about WTC7.
I would not dream of responding if I hadn't. As I said... much conjecture and light on facts.
Can you show me the key parts you consider conclusive?
joelb79
Active Member
The exact same points that you are arguing against ad nauseum here in this 28 page thread. Start there. I have no qualms with any information that has been shared counter to your claims, and I find your claims and theory uninspiring and duplicit from other so called "9/11 truthers".
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I really don't think most people questioning the Official Story believe or claim the NIST Report is not internally consistent . . . I am sure their science is pristine . . . we question whether the access to all the evidence was available and whether there was adequate budget and resources to properly conduct the investigation . . . in fact, these very shortcomings were voiced by the 911 Commission Chairman . . . I rest my case . . .
joelb79
Active Member
I really don't think most people questioning the Official Story believe or claim the NIST Report is not internally consistent . . . I am sure their science is pristine . . . we question whether the access to all the evidence was available and whether there was adequate budget and resources to properly conduct the investigation . . . in fact, these very shortcomings were voiced by the 911 Commission Chairman . . . I rest my case . . .
Your resting a case without making one? If that 9/11 commissioner interview clip is all you got I'm not impressed.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So you have total confidence in the fact no evidence was withheld from NIST or the 911 Commission?
joelb79
Active Member
How can I exactly be 100% for sure there was or wasn't, since I was not an inside party with both the commission or the NIST? I think unknowables like this are a hard position to argue from and argue against, so I will refrain and just say I'm not 100% certain. But that doesn't change my opinion on the NIST report as factual science that cannot be argued against.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
OK . . . what are you 95% certain of?
Jazzy
Closed Account
I did not.
What I said was that there was enough potential energy to heat more than a thousand tons of steel to near-molten temperature, and that at the base of the pile, where the final translation of that energy, kinetic-to-seismic, took place, there was certainly enough spare energy to produce the possibly hundred tons or so of very hot steel, buried in the insulating rubble. The kinetic energy of the pieces of steel raining from above would tend to be mechanically transferred downwards through the already stationary steel wreckage to the footings. Think Newtons's cradle. That was the working principle at that moment.
At temperatures above 1000 deg C, firemen's hose water falling would turn to steam, and in such hot wet atmospheres the steel could rapidly corrode. The water/steam combination is oxidative in the presence of sulfate ions, and can cause the sulfur to pass into solution with the steel to form a low-temperature eutectic iron alloy, which could be molten at that temperature. This would would be a rare, but not impossible event. As far as I recall, there were no witnesses to, or photographs or videos of, molten steel in the basement. It's just another apocryphal tale.
The liquid did not have the properties of molten steel. It was quite obviously melt from the aircraft immediately above it, produced by the intense fire visible above it. You haven't worked in a foundry. I have.
It couldn't have been thermitic iron either, for that would be at 2,500 deg C, a blue-white heat, a thousand degrees hotter than molten steel, and would fall INSIDE the building for that reason. The material cuts immediately through steel or concrete.
The floors of WTC1 & 2 were made of lightweight concrete. You haven't read the NIST Report.
You've obviously done no physical work in your life. Of course you can crush it with a sledgehammer. It's one of the reasons they're for sale.
All-in-all, you make gibberish out of my explanation. If ever NIST had reason not to go into greater detail with their reporting, you would be it. Pearls before swine, and all that.
I don't understand your disrespect of scientists and engineers. Theirs is a discipline which is rigorous and effective, working to rules with great precision. While you demonstrate such disrespect, and also a blatant disregard for truth, I shall not believe a word you write.
Where is your discipline? How is it measured? In characters per minute? Slanders per hour?
joelb79
Active Member
That it wouldn't matter what was hidden if there was; and it would be deemed "national security reasons" anyways; which I am 100% certain that I qualify not to know for reasons that I am 95% certain I wouldn't even be awarded basic "Top Secret Clearance" in the first place.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Thanks for the honest response . . . I really don't think it is as much a National Security issue as pure political and professional embarrassment . . .
joelb79
Active Member
Thanks for the honest response . . . I really don't think it is as much a National Security issue as pure political and professional embarrassment . . .
Be more specific: what was pure political and professional embarrassment? The NIST report itself, or something you have not identified as hidden from them? Was there something actually hidden from them we can point a finger at that is professionally embarrassing or pure politically motivated in origin? (which would require pretty much establishing motive for such as well if one was to make a good point of proving political motivation for their occult behavior).
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How important is the simulations of WTC 7 to you or the lack of testing of the structural steel . . . ? You mentioned the National Security issues . . . IMO National Security issues are just a red herring . . .
But there is no evidence of such an event creating that much energy derived heat. Yes heat is generated but nowhere has it been documented to produce anything like that amount... otherwise it would be a common event on all collapses and demolitions. The kinetic energy result, (heat, disintegration, noise, dispersion) is all dissipated throughout the material which generates it and into the surroundings.
But it is not a scientific conclusion, simply conjecture. From a debunking point of view a far better explanation would be molten lead from the massive batteries stored on that floor, (Uninterruptible Power Supply).
http://11-settembre.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
In 1999, the tenant of the 81st floor of WTC2, Fuji Bank Limited, carried out further reinforcement work on the "two-way" area with the following reason:"Documents reference adding reinforcement to existing two-way floor trusses to accommodate new UPS workspace. Documents do not specify the required amount of reinforcement due to the new superimposed loads"This work was done by the LERA engineering firm, which had been responsible for the structural calculations for the construction of the Twin Towers. Table 13.2 on page 111 of the NCSTAR 1-1H report again summarizes the reinforcement work performed in several stages by Fuji Bank on multiple floors of WTC2, including the 81st floor and extending also to the 80th and 82nd floors.
Enrico,modifications were made in 1991 to reinforce the 81st floor of WTC 2 in an area occupied by the United Parcel Service.Modifications were made in 1999 to floor 81 in an area of the floor occupied by Fuji Bank to accommodate the weight of an uninterruptible power supply.
Both of these modifications are documented in the section of the NIST WTC Investigation Report known as NCSTAR 1-1C (go to http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf).
What is perhaps confusing is that both modifications were made to areas where there are two-way trusses (the corners of the building) and the acronyms (UPS for "United Parcel Service" and "uninterruptible power supply") are the same.
However, these modifications were made eight years apart for two different tenants, so there is no link between them.
I hope this answers your question. Thank you,
Michael Newman Spokesman, NIST WTC Investigation
But the reaction is short lived, as demonstrated by the videos... it is not like the 'acid blood' from Aliens which eats through half a dozen floors before losing it's potency.
The floors were normal reinforced concrete all around the core area and steel reinforced lightweight in the office space but they were also laid on strong steel plating. Lightweight does not mean weak.
I have worked with both, both laying it and dismantling it. Let me assure you Jazzy, I have broken up more than enough concrete to know how difficult it is, especially when it is reinforced... that takes a machine or jackhammer... often it finishes up looking like a swiss cheese but still retains masses of integrity.
http://www.911hoax.com/morgan_reynolds_911_hoax.html
Here is a nice example of a building surviving a plane crashing into it and it is nowhere near as strong as the wtc's
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/content_501143.htm
Smoke and flames rise from a building where a plane crashed in Tehran December 6, 2005. An Iranian military plane carrying at least 94 people crashed in flames into a Tehran apartment block on Tuesday, killing all those on board, police said. [sina]
Very good but refuted above.
Or they could be used to crack nuts
That is brilliant Jazzy... very witty and entertaining... I couldn't stop laughing.
Last edited by a moderator:
joelb79
Active Member
IMO: It's kind of a red herring issue to have them testing steel as if they missed something drastic. Steel is well studied, and it is well known that it looses 50% of its strength at temperatures lower than its melting point. Nothing needs to be studied there that hasn't already been studied; its entirely possible to have a structure fail because of fire causing structural steel to weaken enough to bring a failure. Take for instance the bridge collapse of the bay bridge from a fire.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No one is denying steel loses its strength on getting hot enough . . . one would test the steel to see if it were truly up to standards and not inferior, to discover unexpected oxidation, wear, exposure, fracture and so forth . . .
joelb79
Active Member
If that was found it would imply what though do you think? I don't see how it would change the fact that the building was brought down by uncontrolled fires caused by burning debris, which damaged and set fire to the structure; ultimately leading to steel weakening and internal structural failure causing a catastrophic and destructive failure of the whole building.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have no doubt the building fell through some catastrophic cascade of failure . . .what I doubt is that the Commission and NIST had all the data and evidence that should have been made available to them . . . so their conclusions are hampered by those limitations . . . you feel that it changes nothing . . . I think otherwise . . . I also feel conclusions derived from evidence not admissible in any court of law is evidence I ignore as invalid . . . the simulations of WTC 7 are invalid . . .
Jazzy
Closed Account
The point is that it is NOT "all dissipated throughout the material which generates it and into the surroundings". If you think about it, you'll see that that cannot possibly be true. The kinetic energy of a steel fragment hitting a stopped pile of fragments, many of which have been hammered and flattened already, would have passed through the pile to where it could reach the footing, which would have received a succession of blows, and was about to receive more. The core bases would have already have had the pleasure of reacting the SHEAR of seventy floors punched off their fixings, and would be prime candidates for hotspots.
Incorrect. There is a difference between them. The fire surrounded the pile of aircraft fragments immediately above where the pour took place. That room had a bright vermilion appearance like a furnace interior.
The room beneath was not so hot. The batteries would have had to have had their electrolyte boiled dry before their metal melted.
The pour took place because the corner of that floor had dropped in some way, and not the floor beneath..
Well, you can argue on my side if you like. Then where did it pool as it cooled down? In what? Or you could ask how did it pool? Well, it couldn't, could it? By definition. Think about it.
So you accept my assertion, with smoke. I never said the concrete was weak. But let me assure you that small perlite puffs weaken a concrete's resistance to crushing, and that conversation sprang from the notion that the dust cloud formed by such a collapse was unnatural.
You and me both, then.
Don't you think if you drop 100,000 tons of steel it might be more effective than a jackhammer?
I don't think so. The WTCs were mostly air. Scale is an important consideration.
View attachment 2489
While you're laughing you cannot slander. Keep it up.
Jazzy
Closed Account
The point is that it is NOT "all dissipated throughout the material which generates it and into the surroundings". If you think about it, you'll see that that cannot possibly be true. Some of the kinetic energy of a steel fragment hitting a stopped pile of fragments, many of which have been hammered and flattened already, would have passed through the pile to where it could reach the footing, which would have received a succession of blows, and was about to receive more. It's the principle that is demonstrated by Newton's Cradle.
[video=youtube_share;8M_8Sa_xfzk]http://youtu.be/8M_8Sa_xfzk[/video]
The interior and exterior column bases would have already be having the pleasure of reacting the SHEAR of seventy floors punched off their fixings, and would be prime candidates for hotspots.
Less than half of the total kinetic energy would focus on ground zero, but that is still a very significant amount.
Incorrect. There is a difference between them. The fire surrounded the pile of aircraft fragments immediately above where the pour took place. That room had a bright vermilion appearance like a furnace interior. The room beneath was not so hot. The batteries would have had to have had their electrolyte boiled dry before their metal melted.
The pour took place because the corner of the floor above the batteries had dropped in some way, and not the floor beneath. There was probably forty tons of aluminum wreckage just above.
Well, you can argue on my side if you like. Then where did the thermite iron pool as it cooled down? In what? Or you could ask how did it pool? Well, it couldn't, could it? By definition. Think about it.
So you accept my assertion, with smoke and mirrors. I never said the concrete was weak. But let me assure you that small perlite puffs do weaken a concrete's resistance to crushing. The interior of a perlite bead is AIR. In perlite concrete there is simply less concrete per unit volume.
That conversation sprang from the notion that the dust cloud formed by such a collapse was unnatural.
You and me both, then. How much of it was perlite concrete? Have you ever made and used it? I have.
Don't you think if you drop 100,000 tons of steel it might be more effective than a jackhammer? Especially after a few seconds accelerating at .7G?
No comparison. A plane on approach has ten times less energy than the same plane traveling at 500 mph.
The WTCs were mostly air. Scale is an important consideration.
While you're laughing you cannot slander. Keep it up.
jomper
Inactive Member
And that fact is proved by an investigation that failed to examine any physical evidence from the building, did not test for accelerants and spent a great deal of time and money producing a computer animation that independent experts aren't allowed to check.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jazzy . . . what if someone gave you $20,000,000 could you make a hotspot (scaled down of course) that would simulate 911?
I have never found a comprehensive scientific explanation for the hot spots . . .
I have never found a comprehensive scientific explanation for the hot spots . . .
AVIRIS records the near-infrared signature of heat remotely. The accompanying maps are false color images that show the core affected area around the World Trade Center. Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
hiper
Active Member
This thread just keeps humping along... I thought we had proven that NIST's pseudo scientific handling of their task was reason enough for
a new, official, independent and scientific investigation. What are you guys still talking about?
WTC 7 totally collapses allegedly due to fire.
NIST doesn't test the dust for accelerants & explosives.
NIST doesn't test the steel.
NIST doesn't release the parameters for the 3D model.
And you guys are still trying to defend the NIST report as credible.
How can a pseudo scientific investigation be credible?
Obviously it can not.
a new, official, independent and scientific investigation. What are you guys still talking about?
WTC 7 totally collapses allegedly due to fire.
NIST doesn't test the dust for accelerants & explosives.
NIST doesn't test the steel.
NIST doesn't release the parameters for the 3D model.
And you guys are still trying to defend the NIST report as credible.
How can a pseudo scientific investigation be credible?
Obviously it can not.
Yes, you keep SAYING this, but it does not prove anything.
The investigation and the final report were VERY scientific. Have you not read it?
What do you think of the analysis of where the fire burned, was that not scientific?
Or the analysis of the video and photographic evidence. Not scientific?
hiper
Active Member
Oh it does prove something...
NIST by ignoring vital investigatory avenues doesn't provide key scientific proof...
They can't scientifically prove that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire if they ignore testing the dust and the steel.
Obviously there WAS a fire, and they can demonstrate that it would have collapsed due to fire, which makes everything else irrelevant without evidence that there were something other than fire.
hiper
Active Member
"no audible evidence for a blast event" is a fig leaf Mick. A scientific investigation doesn't need a fig leaf.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
