WTC 7 (Building 7)

[George B]

Just to be complete with WTC #7 . . . has anyone debunked these interesting views of supposedly WTC #7 and window washers . . . clearly there long after the planes truck the Tower/Towers . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44MgsOhVxJI&feature=related ​

 

[George B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBIthneRkE0&annotation_id=annotation_723872&feature=iv ​

 

[George B]

[...] Stop with the false magnanimity. Does it really make you feel good pretending you care more for the 3,000 dead than those who disagree with you? I have relatives that lived through that horrific day and they have friends whose lives were forever snuffed out, so don't play the bleeding heart card.

You've not provided a shred of proof that NIST was errant. This thread is going nowhere.

Sorry about your family and friends . . . I think in retrospect that this Thread has helped me to clarify what I objected to in regards to 911 and specifically WTC #7 . . . doubt it gives those who lost family friends much or any resolution and I regret that, but I think some of them must also have unresolved questions and issues as well . . . I think as American citizens and world citizens we all share the confusion and shock at what happened during 911 and will carry it to our graves . . .

 

[Mick West]

I think what this now circular thread has shown is the end-game of the truther movement.

There are really no facts that don't fit the official story. The collapses ARE consistent with fire. No nano-thermite was found in the dust. The collapse speed is physically plausible. The iron micro-spheres are expected. Fires burn for a long time underground. Falling things make loud bangs. Etc., etc.

So all that is left is to say, over and over and over, "NIST did not test the steel, they did not test the dust for explosives, they did not release all the simulation data".

And that's it. That's all they have when you boil it down. And because those facts are not going to change, they will just keep spinning, round and round, repeating those same things as if they mean something.

The truther end game (for some truthers at least) is a fake stalemate, a forced one-sided stalemate. Refusing to play because they don't like the pieces. Refusing to engage in scientific discussion because something does not meet their definition of science.

The thread has demonstrated this. But now it IS going nowhere, and I'm going to shut it down in a few days.

If you want to start a new thread then FOCUS. Don't attempt to demonstrate that 9/11 was a conspiracy in one thread. That's not going to work. Pick something specific, and spend a lot of time making your first post as accurate, as comprehensives, and as short as possible.

 

[hiper]

[...] Stop with the false magnanimity. Does it really make you feel good pretending you care more for the 3,000 dead than those who disagree with you? I have relatives that lived through that horrific day and they have friends whose lives were forever snuffed out, so don't play the bleeding heart card.

What you were saying in the previous comment was basically :

"yeah well people you're right about NIST's dismal job and all but hey it's the government...
not much you can do about that... let's move on"

The people that died on that day deserve better than NIST from a scientific stand point giving everyone the finger.

You've not provided a shred of proof that NIST was errant. This thread is going nowhere.

Is the thread going nowhere because you have trouble debunking NIST's incriminating investigatory behaviour...

I have to again prove that NIST did not base their conclusions on scientifically investigated evidence?

A) they did not investigate the dust for accelerants and explosives
B) they did not investigate the steel
C) they did not release the parameters they used to come up with the 3D model

How's that for proof... which we have been repeating for many pages...

 

[Mick West]

There you go.

 

[George B]

I think what this now circular thread has shown is the end-game of the truther movement.


So all that is left is to say, over and over and over, "NIST did not test the steel, they did not test the dust for explosives, they did not release all the simulation data".

And that's it. That's all they have when you boil it down. And because those facts are not going to change, they will just keep spinning, round and round, repeating those same things as if they mean something.

I respectfully disagree with you Mick . . . IMO, these are not small . . . they are huge, in fact, I feel they invalidate all the hard work and effort NIST did do . . . and as a disinterested third party investigator many times in my career I would not have found them acceptable and had I accepted such I would have been fired or reprimanded for such incomplete job . . . That is all I have to say . . .

 

[hiper]

There you go.

NIST not investigating key evidence is not a stalemate... it is incriminating.

 

[Mick West]

I respectfully disagree with you Mick . . . IMO, these are not small . . . they are huge, in fact, I feel they invalidate all the hard work and effort NIST did do . . . and as a disinterested third party investigator many times in my career I would not have found them acceptable and had I accepted such I would have been fired or reprimanded for such incomplete job . . . That is all I have to say . . .

And now it has been said.

NIST not investigating key evidence is not a stalemate... it is incriminating.

Okay, so why not move on to discussing science. Why not pretend the NIST report does not exist?

Why are you stuck in this loop?

 

[George B]

And now it has been said.



Okay, so why not move on to discussing science. Why not pretend the NIST report does not exist?

Why are you stuck in this loop?

In a court of law when someone withholds information or refuses to answer questions they are considered a hostile witness and their entire testimony is considered suspect . . . what we are saying is we need to start from scratch with a new investigation and investigators because we have no trust in the evidence presented by these witnesses . . . so what do you do ??? You have trusted third party experts reexamine the entire set of evidence and validate the analysis and conclusions doing new analysis and testing if they deem it required . . . the science might be spot on and probably is . . . however, the data or evidence may be suspect . . . meaning garbage in garbage out . . .

 

[Mick West]

In a court of law when someone withholds information or refuses to answer questions they are considered a hostile witness and their entire testimony is considered suspect . . . what we are saying is we need to start from scratch with a new investigation and investigators because we have no trust in the evidence presented by these witnesses . . . so what do you do ??? You have trusted third party experts reexamine the entire set of evidence and validate the analysis and conclusions doing new analysis and testing if they deem it required . . . the science might be spot on and probably is . . . however, the data or evidence may be suspect . . . meaning garbage in garbage out . . .

So ignore the conclusions in report that are based on what you consider garbage. Move on. A new investigation is not going to happen. That's just part of the false stalemate.

 

[hiper]

Okay, so why not move on to discussing science. Why not pretend the NIST report does not exist?

Why are you stuck in this loop?

WTC7 collapses like a controlled demo allegedly due to fire + NIST ignoring key investigatory evidence = smelling to high heaven

 

[George B]

So ignore the conclusions in report that are based on what you consider garbage. Move on. A new investigation is not going to happen. That's just part of the false stalemate.

I never said the conclusions were garbage . . . in fact I stated the science is probably spot on . . . but based on evidence that was limited, incomplete, overlooked, and possibly intentionally withheld from the investigators. The report should have stated . . . this is our conclusion based on our analysis of the limited evidence we had and was scientifically the best fit; however, to be complete and transparent we would have liked to have had this additional set of evidence (a-z) but it was destroyed and removed before we could review and test it . . . we recommend the following future investigative actions . . . to include . . .

 

[Mick West]

WTC7 collapses like a controlled demo allegedly due to fire + NIST ignoring key investigatory evidence = smelling to high heaven

But we already know you are very suspicious. So why not address the science? Why continually falling back on the "but, NIST .... "?'

You know, even if NIST did everything you asked, you'd still be suspicious, wouldn't you? Don't you think they are covering things up? So if they are covering things up, then why does them not being as complete as you like actually make it more suspicious? If anything it should make it LESS suspicious.

What are the alternatives:

A) NIST performed a great investigation, perfect in every aspect, but they neglected to test the steel, or the dust, because they would show they were wrong.
B) NIST faked all their results, and didn't test the steel or dust, because ...???
C) NIST performed an honest but poor investigation, neglecting to perform key tests
D) NIST performed a great investigation, and justifiably did not perform tests which were not indicated, or for which samples were not available.

I'm with D, maybe with a splash of C. What do you think happened?

 

[George B]

But we already know you are very suspicious. So why not address the science? Why continually falling back on the "but, NIST .... "?'

You know, even if NIST did everything you asked, you'd still be suspicious, wouldn't you? Don't you think they are covering things up? So if they are covering things up, then why does them not being as complete as you like actually make it more suspicious? If anything it should make it LESS suspicious.

What are the alternatives:

A) NIST performed a great investigation, perfect in every aspect, but they neglected to test the steel, or the dust, because they would show they were wrong.
B) NIST faked all their results, and didn't test the steel or dust, because ...???
C) NIST performed an honest but poor investigation, neglecting to perform key tests
D) NIST performed a great investigation, and justifiably did not perform tests which were not indicated, or for which samples were not available.

I'm with D, maybe with a splash of C. What do you think happened?

I vote for C) . . . but would add that they were not given adequate resources to complete the investigation . . .

 

[hiper]

What do you think happened?

As I said before NIST must have found testing the dust 'officially' to be more of a potential quagmire
than not test it and hide behind the "no audible evidence for a blast event" fig leaf.
That was the choice they at some point were in front of.

Don't you think they would have tested the dust officially if it could have strengthened their final conclusions?

 

[Oxymoron]

But we already know you are very suspicious. So why not address the science? Why continually falling back on the "but, NIST .... "?'

You know, even if NIST did everything you asked, you'd still be suspicious, wouldn't you? Don't you think they are covering things up? So if they are covering things up, then why does them not being as complete as you like actually make it more suspicious? If anything it should make it LESS suspicious.

What are the alternatives:

A) NIST performed a great investigation, perfect in every aspect, but they neglected to test the steel, or the dust, because they would show they were wrong.
B) NIST faked all their results, and didn't test the steel or dust, because ...???
C) NIST performed an honest but poor investigation, neglecting to perform key tests
D) NIST performed a great investigation, and justifiably did not perform tests which were not indicated, or for which samples were not available.

I'm with D, maybe with a splash of C. What do you think happened?

What about E) NIST conducted a cutting edge investigation by working backwards from the 'result' to accomplish an ostensibly acceptable explanation in line with the political needs of the time by producing theories which fit and by excluding tests which they would need to lie about in order to publish the theories

 

[Mick West]

What about E) NIST conducted a cutting edge investigation by working backwards from the 'result' to accomplish an ostensibly acceptable explanation in line with the political needs of the time by producing theories which fit and by excluding tests which they would need to lie about in order to publish the theories

Isn't that really the same as B?

 

[Oxymoron]

Isn't that really the same as B?

I think it is similar but more subtle. I think E) allows for an ethos of 'keep as close to the truth as possible'...'interpretation covers a multitude of sins'... 'ommissions are preferable to lies'...'lie only as last resort if we have to'

 

[jomper]

What are the alternatives:

A) NIST performed a great investigation, perfect in every aspect, but they neglected to test the steel, or the dust, because they would show they were wrong.
B) NIST faked all their results, and didn't test the steel or dust, because ...???
C) NIST performed an honest but poor investigation, neglecting to perform key tests
D) NIST performed a great investigation, and justifiably did not perform tests which were not indicated, or for which samples were not available.

Z) NIST ignored fundamental principles of the scientific method such as verifiability and falsifiability, so the quality of its investigation is fundamentally flawed and irrelevant.

 

[someGuy]

Z) NIST ignored fundamental principles of the scientific method such as verifiability and falsifiability, so the quality of its investigation is fundamentally flawed and irrelevant.

 

[hiper]

ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?
NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.
ABEL: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?
NEWMAN: If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time....

--Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson.

 

[jomper]

 

[someGuy]

I vote for C) . . . but would add that they were not given adequate resources to complete the investigation . . .

I second that
Vote for C too

 

[Cairenn]

Why should they have looked for 'zebra DNA' when there was no reason to think that a 'zebra' had passed by?

Your problem with the it is not that they didn't do a good job, but that they didn't look for evidence of one of your pet theories. That is YOUR problem, not one with the study.

 

[someGuy]

Why should they have looked for 'zebra DNA' when there was no reason to think that a 'zebra' had passed by?

Your problem with the it is not that they didn't do a good job, but that they didn't look for evidence of one of your pet theories. That is YOUR problem, not one with the study.

​

 

[George B]

Why should they have looked for 'zebra DNA' when there was no reason to think that a 'zebra' had passed by?

Your problem with the it is not that they didn't do a good job, but that they didn't look for evidence of one of your pet theories. That is YOUR problem, not one with the study.

Because when a crime is committed one looks for criminals or at least evidence of their activities . . . the whole argument is what is reasonable and what isn't . . . we obviously disagree on that point and will most likely never agree . . .

 

[Cairenn]

I doubt that toxicology studies are done on someone that was shot or stabbed, UNLESS there is something to suggest it, like some evidence in tissues or the medical history.

If the clerk in a 7-11 is shot by a robber, there would not be a good reason to see if they had been poisoned with arsenic. A check might be made for recreational drug use (to see if somehow drugs might be related).

They had a solid cause, the damage from the planes and the fires. They did not need to go looking for a cause that there was no evidence that it had happened.

 

[someGuy]

I doubt that toxicology studies are done on someone that was shot or stabbed, UNLESS there is something to suggest it

In any cases you just don't dump crime scene evidences in a dumpster before the start of investigations

 

[Cairenn]

So they were supposed to have found a place to store TONS of rubble. Or were they supposed to have left in place with human body parts mixed in, until all the investigation could be done?

Sometimes REAL LIFE has to be considered.

 

[George B]

I doubt that toxicology studies are done on someone that was shot or stabbed, UNLESS there is something to suggest it, like some evidence in tissues or the medical history.

If the clerk in a 7-11 is shot by a robber, there would not be a good reason to see if they had been poisoned with arsenic. A check might be made for recreational drug use (to see if somehow drugs might be related).

They had a solid cause, the damage from the planes and the fires. They did not need to go looking for a cause that there was no evidence that it had happened.

So there was no suspicion that terrorists were involved with 911 and no terrorists use explosives or accelerants nor do they use secondary explosions to catch first and second responders to increase the terror and casualties . . . how did the water become restricted . . . accident or by plan . . .? WTC 7 could have been a secondary target because of all the federal agencies . . . All reasonable or not? Did they know the aircraft would bring the buildings down or attract casualties and firemen . . . ?

 

[Cairenn]

There is NO evidence that any explosives were used in WTC 7. NO way to plant them, no way to make sure they survived the fires, no way to make sure that the building would be damaged in a certain way.

You ask how the water got restricted when 2 huge buildings next door had collapsed? To me that is a silly question.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure.

At times you and others seem strangely disconnected with reality. It seems that your beliefs override your common sense.

 

[George B]

There is NO evidence that any explosives were used in WTC 7. NO way to plant them, no way to make sure they survived the fires, no way to make sure that the building would be damaged in a certain way.

You ask how the water got restricted when 2 huge buildings next door had collapsed? To me that is a silly question.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure.

At times you and others seem strangely disconnected with reality. It seems that your beliefs override your common sense.

There is no evidence of anything unless you look for it or attempt to collect it . . . because you already presume to know everything already . . .that is not the way investigations are conducted . . . and that is common sense . . .

 

[someGuy]

So they were supposed to have found a place to store TONS of rubble. Or were they supposed to have left in place with human body parts mixed in, until all the investigation could be done?

Sometimes REAL LIFE has to be considered.

That's not what they do usually ?

What about keeping some samples, at least...

 

[MikeC]

There is no evidence of anything unless you look for it or attempt to collect it . . . because you already presume to know everything already . . .that is not the way investigations are conducted . . . and that is common sense . . .

Why would you look for something when there is clear evidence it did not occur?

...Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

from the NIST FAQ

Other things they did not look for: moleman activity under the building, death rays from space, steel eating bacteria or nano-dissasemblers.

You seem to think that you (or anyone) saying "oh but I think there might have been thermite" or "I think that you should have tested for thermite or other explosives" is sufficient to require more investigation than WAS done.

I got news for you - it isn't. A crackpot theory based on paranoia, flimsy evidence and wishful thinking IS NOT worth as much investigation as real causes.

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

or, put another way - sure you are entitled to hold your opinion, but you are not entitled to have it treated as a serious candidate for "the truth" - that is something you have to earn.

and you haven't.

 

[jomper]

I doubt that toxicology studies are done on someone that was shot or stabbed, UNLESS there is something to suggest it, like some evidence in tissues or the medical history.

If the clerk in a 7-11 is shot by a robber, there would not be a good reason to see if they had been poisoned with arsenic. A check might be made for recreational drug use (to see if somehow drugs might be related).

They had a solid cause, the damage from the planes and the fires. They did not need to go looking for a cause that there was no evidence that it had happened.

The evidence that would require looking for accelerants is the reality of the collapse itself -- its speed, relative symmetry and totality. As I have said before, a reasonable person viewing the collapse footage for the first time would not perceive fire to be the obvious sole cause: and of course this is true, as Danny Jowenko showed.

The only response I've had to this simple point (from Mick) is that people shouldn't believe what they see and it's only because people do silly things like believing what they see that they do silly things like expecting some investigation of the possibility that accelerants were involved.

That doesn't seem good enough to me.

It seems a shame that Mick is going to close this thread down, as I've appreciated the contributions of latecomers to the discussion, but I would like to extend my thanks to him for at least not shutting it down before now, and allowing it to run this far.

I sometimes feel that the WTC 7 controversy bears comparisons to the Lance Armstrong case. Out and out denial that anything was wrong worked well for Armstrong for years, and out and out denial that anything was wrong with the investigation into WTC 7 is what we've seen here.

It seems impossible that someone could be at the centre of such a successful conspiracy for so many years when so many people were aware of it and were part of it, and yet he was able to face down the suggestions that his extraordinary performances were in any way illegally enhanced by simply being aggressive. He was too big to be busted. Similarly what we have with the WTC 7 collapse is the implication that the case is too big and important to be viewed any other way than the way NIST wants us to see it, and there's generally an aggressive and blustering response to anyone who suggests otherwise.

And yet, like Armstong's performances, the collapse of WTC 7 was so extraordinary and so beyond what is "normally" expected that it is entirely reasonable to ask if illegal or exotic substances or enhancements were involved, and general denial or a focus on the science of the NIST report does not change the fact that these were not tested for.

 

[Cairenn]

That is a poor choice for a comparison, since the rumors about Lance had been circulating for years, and since it was obvious that he had access to those that could give him those drugs. Lots of circumstantial evidence out there. Something that is lacking in 9/11.

NO evidence. I still want a reasonable explanation of each of these to start.

1) how and when were they placed?
2) how were they protected from the fires?
3) where did the implosion engineers come from?
4) how did the KNOW that the building would be damaged and where?

That is a start.
Answer those with common sense and reasonable answers and I will continue the chat. If you can't, then I am wasting my time and electricity trying to have a discussion with a fence post.

 

[someGuy]

1) how and when were they placed?
2) how were they protected from the fires?
3) where did the implosion engineers come from?
4) how did the KNOW that the building would be damaged and where?

Ok I try, even if I'm not convinced explosives were used

1)
How
By qualified people obviously, above suspicions, with a total access to the building, maybe some listed here, or not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Seven_World_Trade_Center
When
Hard to say, maybe months before, depends on the type of explosives

2)
Those explosives can't be triggered by fire...
Let's go for the good old C4 or a better version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive)
"When ignited with a flame rather than detonated with a primary explosive, C4 just burns"

3)
From the main door I guess, as technicians or employees

4) Didn't matter, see 2)

 

[George B]

Why would you look for something when there is clear evidence it did not occur?

...Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

from the NIST FAQ

Other things they did not look for: moleman activity under the building, death rays from space, steel eating bacteria or nano-dissasemblers.

You seem to think that you (or anyone) saying "oh but I think there might have been thermite" or "I think that you should have tested for thermite or other explosives" is sufficient to require more investigation than WAS done.

I got news for you - it isn't. A crackpot theory based on paranoia, flimsy evidence and wishful thinking IS NOT worth as much investigation as real causes.

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

or, put another way - sure you are entitled to hold your opinion, but you are not entitled to have it treated as a serious candidate for "the truth" - that is something you have to earn.

and you haven't.

I thought we were talking about WTC 7 . . . according to the SIMULATION the collapse began nearer to the bottom. . . the catastrophic collapse of column 79 . . . .??? You need to stick to one theory or maybe there is room for several theories . . . you are right since we all knew exactly what happened . . . that is why the first NIST Report was finalized in 2005 for WTC 1&2 and in 2008 for WTC 7 . . . seems everything was so very clear and simple so forgive us doubters for expressing our concerns . . .

 

[joelb79]

Ok I try, even if I'm not convinced explosives were used
2)
Those explosives can't be triggered by fire...
Let's go for the good old C4 or a better version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive)
"When ignited with a flame rather than detonated with a primary explosive, C4 just burns"

And you can prove that the fires that were known to be burning in the building were not enough to burn all the critical explosives up? I would think you would also need to know what explosives are critical and be an expert in their placement before you could credibly answer these questions, so I'm not expecting my mind to be blow at all.