WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grieves

Senior Member
So Michael Hess' initial interpretation of the events was an explosion in the basement, but he afterward came to the conclusion this was not the case. He offers no real 'timeframe' for these series of events, and suggests that, because he could not see the towers, they may have already fallen.
Barry Jennings on the other hand maintains his belief there was an explosion below him, going so far as to state he felt the force of it, and it blew him back. He also offers up indicators of timing, as he clearly states that the second plane struck while he was on the 23rd floor of WTC, which was at 9:03 am, and shortly after they were trying to make their escape of the building. So unless it took them an hour to climb down 17 floors worth of stairs, WTC debris doesn't exactly explain what they experienced.
The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn't want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling "do not do that, it won't hold you". And then they ran away. I didn't know what was going on. That's when the first tower fell.
Here he clearly states that he was communicating with firefighters who were driven to run away by the FIRST tower collapse.
When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back... with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell.
So as they turned and ran the second time, the guy said "We'll be back for you". And they did come back, this time they came back with 10 firefighters.
Again he references his interaction with the firefighters, and their second retreat in the wake of the second collapse.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/008/hessjenningswtc7explosiontvbroadcast
just found this article on the subject, very much worth a read. Apparently Hess was rescued and conducting an interview by around 11 am several long blocks away from WTC. This, and a large portion of Jennings testimony, seems to directly contradict what NIST had to say about their experience. In fact, NIST is seemingly putting words in Jennings' mouth.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
another good link from that site. Not directly related, but important I think.

"If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned December 2003.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I'm really fed up of people quoting Jennings's testimony. It is quite obvious he wasn't aware of what had been happening with WTC1&2, and had no regular time sense.

A building which had been burning for seven hours, and had been vacated of fireman an hour previously (according to some people they hadn't a clue what they were doing!), collapsed five hours after its fire insulation had time-expired, amazing...

And how many fuel tanks and electrical transformers did the building have? That many?

Poppycock.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
It is quite obvious he wasn't aware of what had been happening with WTC1&2, and had no regular time sense.
How-so? Are you saying he's lying when he says he was on the 23rd floor when the plane struck? When the landing in the stairwell gave out? When the firefighters fled, and then fled again? Making it up? He 'imagined' it? I wondered when people would finally start crapping on Jennings himself. Mick was curt enough to avoid it. Figures you'd jump right in, Jazz.
A building which had been burning for seven hours,
on only a few floors.
collapsed five hours after its fire insulation had time-expired, amazing...
Has it ever happened before? Has it ever happened since? I'd say a shocking and unprecedented event qualifies as amazing, yes, in spite of your sarcasm. You frequently talk about the events of 9/11 following the impacts of the planes as if they were entirely expected and the only possible outcome. THAT, sir, is poppycock.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
How-so? Are you saying he's lying when he says he was on the 23rd floor when the plane struck? When the landing in the stairwell gave out? When the firefighters fled, and then fled again? Making it up? He 'imagined' it? I wondered when people would finally start crapping on Jennings himself.
No, he was confused or mistaken. "….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing. I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions".

The firefighters had many more reasons to flee than just two. You're the one that's crapping.

Mick was curt enough to avoid it. Figures you'd jump right in, Jazz.
It's not a comfortable situation for me either. But you're clinging to the rock and I'd like to prise your fingers off. The building was struck entirely accidentally by huge heavy pieces of WTC1 doing around 120 mph. It was a lightweight long-span slender insulated steel column structure built over a bridge beam spanning an entirely different structure and a void. Allowed to burn because there was no water main pressure.

on only a few floors.
That's a telling argument if the structure were a conventional r/c steel structure like the Empire State, but meaningless in terms of the structure that was actually there, which I've just described. If any column standing on the bridge were to be destabilized at a single point, so as to lose its footing, then the center of the building would be forced to collapse by sliding off the beam structures, leaving its slightly reinforced outside walls to remain standing and unnecessarily make fools out of truthers once more.

Has it ever happened before? Has it ever happened since? I'd say a shocking and unprecedented event qualifies as amazing, yes, in spite of your sarcasm.
It isn't amazing that a large steel structure with 2 hr protection collapses in a seven hour fire on sixteen floors.

You frequently talk about the events of 9/11 following the impacts of the planes as if they were entirely expected and the only possible outcome. THAT, sir, is poppycock.
It was possible for the planes to miss, or strike the tower too low down to penetrate the core. But they didn't.

The only possible outcome for either tower, when the planes penetrated, was collapse. Your dissonance is only to be expected. You bear a grudge of some sort, and constantly search to confirm your preconceptions. One by one the gaps you dance around will be filled in, and you'll have nowhere to dance. Nobody is going to notice.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
He also offers up indicators of timing, as he clearly states that the second plane struck while he was on the 23rd floor of WTC, which was at 9:03 am, and shortly after they were trying to make their escape of the building. So unless it took them an hour to climb down 17 floors worth of stairs, WTC debris doesn't exactly explain what they experienced.

It makes more sense if you consider this account as well:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/anin-depthlookatconspiracistclaimsaboutw
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It makes more sense if you consider this account as well:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/anin-depthlookatconspiracistclaimsaboutw

I don't think it that easy... left no contact details :)

Yes, I am surprised there are not more people talking about what they experienced, from both sides. Guess there is always the verification issue though... are they really who they say?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
So...on which floors would the explosives be safe from fire??
2, 1, B, P. One doesn't need to rig the entire building to bring down a steel-framed structure. The entire structure needs to be rigged when the building is mostly masonry.
No, he was confused or mistaken.
That's interesting, given he told precisely the same story every time he was interviewed, including specific details. If the interviews are any indication, it would appear that Jennings is considerably less confused then Hess, as where Jennings can offer specific details and a relatively thorough series of events, Hess' interview has little of those qualities, and seems to suggest he was the one in the more confused state. Not surprising given he was the older gentleman and wasn't employed in emergency services as Jennings was.
I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions"
relevance to your point? There's nothing particularly confused about this statement. He also clearly adds later many of these explosions he was hearing he believed to be the result of cars and trucks exploding outside. That doesn't change his rather specific account of being blasted off his feet from below while descending a stairwell in WTC 7 before the tower collapsed. He's just confused or mistaken though, and equally unworthy of any consideration. Just like all the other eye-witness accounts. Just like the obviously extraordinary collapse of the building itself. Just like the vast and unquestionable array of failures, some apparently deliberate or at least entirely unexplained, of the investigative teams involved. Just like the cruel joke that was the 9/11 Commission, an unquestionably inadequate and underfunded effort riddled with conflict of interest and insistent on dancing around a majority of the extremely important and legitimate questions being asked by the families of victims. Just like Bush and Cheney refusing to take questions publicly, separately, under oath or on the record.

The only possible outcome for either tower, when the planes penetrated, was collapse.
The Grand Master of Physics has spoken once more. Far be it for me to argue this ridiculously bold assumption.

It isn't amazing that a large steel structure with 2 hr protection collapses in a seven hour fire on sixteen floors.
Has it ever happened before? Has it ever happened since? Were the millions and millions of people who saw the building 7 collapse (many millions upon millions likely still haven't) not shocked, baffled, confused, angered, or otherwise inspired to powerful emotional response?
[h=2]a·maze[/h] [uh-meyz] Show IPA verb, a·mazed, a·maz·ing, noun
verb (used with object)1.to overwhelm with surprise or sudden wonder; astonish greatly.

2.Obsolete . to bewilder; perplex.



You bear a grudge of some sort, and constantly search to confirm your preconceptions. One by one the gaps you dance around will be filled in, and you'll have nowhere to dance. Nobody is going to notice.
well, that's all very poetic Jazzy, it's nice to see you branching out to more artful ways of judging and patronizing others. Frankly though, I don't feel like I'm the one who's doing the 'dancing'.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Right. It's simple- heck, even easy for AlQueda to execute complex, well coordinated attacks on America with minimal information shared and a minimal number of parties involved... as easy as, say, planning a wedding or a surprise birthday party.
Do you guys hear yourselves?
Have you forgotten your own arguments about how impossible it would be to coordinate an attack of this nature from the inside without thousands of thousands of people being in on it?
I can hear the response now, "There's a difference between terrorists flying planes into buildings and internal enemies planting bombs in them!" Right, right... one's easy as pie, the other is entirely impossible...

You think it would be easier to arrange a plot involving one group who plan out where in a building to strategically place charges which would then be installed by a another crew of demolition experts who would go in every night followed by a crew construction workers to open walls, plant charges, rebuild the walls, leave without a trace and repeat without alerting any of the occupants for months? Easier than me calling 10 couples and asking them to come over next Friday for a surprise party? Having worked in Manhattan for years, I would bet that many of the buildings had shifts of workers who were there 24 hours a day. One would think that the stock exchange, for example, would be unoccupied during the night. My brother in law used to work in IT and his job from midnight to 8 was working on the computers for the NY stock exchange. Those buildings probably weren't just sitting there empty every night from 5 PM till 9 AM.

Not to mention the thousands of people who would have been working on the rigging and reconstruction. The plot, as it was, involved a handful of terrorists, who convinced 4 pilots to do a suicide mission (there seem to be no dearth of middle easterners willing to blow themselves up), and convince about 16 more men who may or may not have known they were on a suicide mission, to perform an operation that from start to finish took an hour or so. Sounds simpler to me.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
(there seem to be no dearth of middle easterners willing to blow themselves up)
Woof.
You think it would be easier to arrange a plot involving one group who plan out where in a building to strategically place charges which would then be installed by a another crew of demolition experts who would go in every night followed by a crew construction workers to open walls, plant charges, rebuild the walls, leave without a trace and repeat without alerting any of the occupants for months? Easier than me calling 10 couples and asking them to come over next Friday for a surprise party? Having worked in Manhattan for years, I would bet that many of the buildings had shifts of workers who were there 24 hours a day. One would think that the stock exchange, for example, would be unoccupied during the night. My brother in law used to work in IT and his job from midnight to 8 was working on the computers for the NY stock exchange. Those buildings probably weren't just sitting there empty every night from 5 PM till 9 AM.
No. I don't think such an undertaking would be comparative to planning a wedding. That notion is entirely ludicrous. As is the notion that breaching several of the most stringent and well-equipped security barriers on the planet, each over a dozen times, and coordinating an airstrike on several targets using civilian hijacked jets as weapons all on the same day and generally at the same time, successfully making the most powerful defense-force in the history of mankind look like a bad joke, takes all the coordination of planning a wedding. I can't wrap my head around the thought, it's so thick.

Not to mention the thousands of people who would have been working on the rigging and reconstruction. The plot, as it was, involved a handful of terrorists, who convinced 4 pilots to do a suicide mission (there seem to be no dearth of middle easterners willing to blow themselves up), and convince about 16 more men who may or may not have known they were on a suicide mission, to perform an operation that from start to finish took an hour or so. Sounds simpler to me.
I've worked the office scene. Janitorial staff, security staff, various and ever-changing assortments of technicians and handy-men wander and work, with the workers often compelled not to socialize with them while they're working, because they're supposed to be working of course. The Bush family has an ownership interest in the firm that provided electronic security for the WTC. No 'slam dunk' or anything, but it's a somewhat odd coincidence that the Bush family would have a vested interest in the security of the buildings the destruction of which solidified George W.'s once shaky position as president, and allowed him to make a lot of his friends vast amounts of money blowing up middle-easterners. Not to make any implications about those who might work for this company nor suggest individual employees are responsible, but on the off-chance, however remote you might imagine it, that an internal conspiracy was in play, would it be so beyond possibility that a team of men, perhaps a very small one, with every reason to be there and full security clearance, might have moved from floor to floor over the period of a year, doing discreet work? "We're just taking down the dry-wall and putting in fiber-optic cable for the new network, checking for mold/spraying for bedbugs, ect.ect.ect." It seems to me like it would have to be an incredibly complex and extremely well coordinated effort to do it discreetly, but it doesn't seem like 'thousands of people would have to know', or like it would be impossible.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The acts themselves are difficult. But the question was about the amount of coordination required. Similar to a large wedding
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The Bush family has an ownership interest in the firm that provided electronic security for the WTC. No 'slam dunk' or anything, but it's a somewhat odd coincidence that the Bush family would have a vested interest in the security of the buildings the destruction of which solidified George W.'s once shaky position as president, and allowed him to make a lot of his friends vast amounts of money blowing up middle-easterners. Not to make any implications about those who might work for this company nor suggest individual employees are responsible, but on the off-chance, however remote you might imagine it, that an internal conspiracy was in play, would it be so beyond possibility that a team of men, perhaps a very small one, with every reason to be there and full security clearance, might have moved from floor to floor over the period of a year, doing discreet work? "We're just taking down the dry-wall and putting in fiber-optic cable for the new network, checking for mold/spraying for bedbugs, ect.ect.ect." It seems to me like it would have to be an incredibly complex and extremely well coordinated effort to do it discreetly, but it doesn't seem like 'thousands of people would have to know', or like it would be impossible.

I think your Bush angel is tenuous. One of the Bushes was on the Board of Directors for a company that did some security work at the WTC, but it was terminated in 1998, and Bush's involvement with the company ended in 2000. The Port AUthority was in charge of security at the WTC. John O'Neill, who was killed, was in charge of security. You'd think HE would have known about it if it was an inside job.

What evidence do you have to prove any of what you are saying above, or are you just trying to instill doubt?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
But the question was about the amount of coordination required. Similar to a large wedding
Again, I can't see how. Large weddings typically aren't planned with the American Military, Intelligence, and Police communities posing constant risk and raising frequent barriers.

What evidence do you have to prove any of what you are saying above, or are you just trying to instill doubt?
As I stated, I wasn't making any accusations, or suggesting the Bush connection was any sort of proof. I was addressing the idea that an explosives scenario was entirely impossible simply because it would require 'thousands' of professionals to be in on it, and 'someone would have talked by now'... something that frequently comes up and had again a few posts prior. I was also trying to emphasize why suggesting the explosives scenario was an absolute impossibility given how very difficult it would be to enact, while at the same time arguing that the terrorist attack on the world trade center as described in the official account would have been a relatively simple process requiring little coordination, is somewhat absurd.
 
Sorry to be a bit late to this party - the collapse of WTC 7 is one of the "smoking guns" which undermines the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

Having done a brief search of the forum, I cannot see any mention of any of the books of David Ray Griffin. However, he has written a number of excellent books on 9/11, and in particular his book on WTC 7 comprehensively demolishes the official theory, pun intended.

If you are looking to debunk the so-called "conspiracy theory" about WTC 7, you will have to debunk this book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1844370836

I'm not going to recap the whole book in this first post, but the official NIST collapse theory is laughable (fancy graphics notwithstanding). We are talking about an office fire (i.e. paper and furniture, i.e. pretty low temperatures), causing part of some floors to expand (somehow) and thereby cause the entire building to collapse, at free fall speed?

Over to you guys.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry to be a bit late to this party - the collapse of WTC 7 is one of the "smoking guns" which undermines the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

Having done a brief search of the forum, I cannot see any mention of any of the books of David Ray Griffin. However, he has written a number of excellent books on 9/11, and in particular his book on WTC 7 comprehensively demolishes the official theory, pun intended.

If you are looking to debunk the so-called "conspiracy theory" about WTC 7, you will have to debunk this book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1844370836

I'm not going to recap the whole book in this first post, but the official NIST collapse theory is laughable (fancy graphics notwithstanding). We are talking about an office fire (i.e. paper and furniture, i.e. pretty low temperatures), causing part of some floors to expand (somehow) and thereby cause the entire building to collapse, at free fall speed?

Over to you guys.

Perhaps you could be a little more specific? All the claims in the book have been addressed in many places.

Why don't you find part of the NIST report that Griffin debunks, quote (or reference) that part, and then explain how Griffin debunks it?
 
Perhaps you could be a little more specific? All the claims in the book have been addressed in many places.

Why don't you find part of the NIST report that Griffin debunks, quote (or reference) that part, and then explain how Griffin debunks it?

Sure, will do. I don't have the book to hand, but I have found a good article by Griffin which summarises the key points. It can be found at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201 which also includes all the references.

Below is a cut and paste of the final paragraphs together with the references 51 to 57. Hopefully this is specific enough - I could rewrite the article but to be honest it is clear and specific, so should provide a good starting point for discussion.

 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so.


NIST’S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”

But it didn't fall at free fall speed!

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”


The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.

First of all, it DIDN'T FALL AT FREE FALL SPEED. So any conclusion he draws from his initial erroneous statement is b.s.

Secondly Chandler seems to think that unless the upper floors were falling through a void, they would have been STOPPED in their fall. "Momentum" anyone?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I would like to see those 'identical' coefficient's of expansion. I work with glass enamel, and the glass must be formulated for the metal you are using, copper, or steel or silver.
 

JonJson

Active Member
We are talking about an office fire (i.e. paper and furniture, i.e. pretty low temperatures), causing part of some floors to expand (somehow) and thereby cause the entire building to collapse, at free fall speed?

Over to you guys.

I really have to object to the assertion that the building collapsed at "free fall speed". No structure regardless of collapsing from demolition or structural failure will collapse at the same speed of an object in free fall. In order for each floor to collapse the structural integrity of the supports holding up the building will need to be overcome. This may take as little as 1/10th of a second lets say. Using some simple math that would mean that a building such as WTC7 it would take nearly 5 seconds longer than an object in true free fall because as each floor collapses we would be adding 1/10th of a second. This is not even taking into account that each pause is effectively arresting the acceleration rate of the object as it falls which you would not see with an object dropped from 47 stories. These sorts of statements by CT's are just meant to add some sort of authority to the claim that WTC7 was brought down by demolition as if the collapse by structural failure would behave somehow differently, but they are just not true. WTC7 did not collapse at anywhere close to an object in free fall.
 

JonJson

Active Member
Below is a cut and paste of the final paragraphs together with the references 51 to 57. Hopefully this is specific enough - I could rewrite the article but to be honest it is clear and specific, so should provide a good starting point for discussion.


So with that statement that the collapse happened in three stage and the middle part was the part where free fall happened wouldn't that mean the collapse had already started before the supports failed across the eight floors? Why if the building had already begun collapsing would it be necessary to detonate support columns on eight floors? If free fall doesn't happen at the start of the fall your claim that the support structure was demolished by explosives can't be what caused the collapse.
 
And which one of those three would you like to discuss?

Let's talk about the shear stud failure issue, shall we? I have done a search of the forum and didn't find it referred to previously, apologies if I missed it.

The point is, if NIST used inaccurate assumptions or mechanisms as the basis for its computer model, then that computer model is not going to produce an accurate description of reality, simple GIGO principle.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Let's talk about the shear stud failure issue, shall we? I have done a search of the forum and didn't find it referred to previously, apologies if I missed it.

The point is, if NIST used inaccurate assumptions or mechanisms as the basis for its computer model, then that computer model is not going to produce an accurate description of reality, simple GIGO principle.

Shear studs were mentioned twice, but I assume you mean this?
 
Thanks for this PDF.

The phrase "No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis." is on p353

The phrase "In general, the steel framing heated more quickly than the concrete slab. Thus, even though steel and
concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion, differential thermal expansion occurred between
the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire." is on p490

It appears that the expansion of the concrete slab should have been included in the computer model, but was not.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for this PDF.

The phrase "No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis." is on p353

The phrase "In general, the steel framing heated more quickly than the concrete slab. Thus, even though steel and
concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion, differential thermal expansion occurred between
the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire." is on p490

It appears that the expansion of the concrete slab should have been included in the computer model, but was not.

Yes it was.

So where the slab was not heated it was in a limited analysis of the northeast corner floor done to determine the failure modes (the ways in which it might fail).

The full analysis used correct temperatures of both steel and concrete.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Yes, it's been explained numerous times. Explanations abound. All over the internet, bookstores, and libraries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center


What do you find lacking in these explanations?

It seems to me that the NIST WTC 7 report debunks the fire-induced collapse hypothesis by representing this computer model as its best attempt to prove the case. It is simply not sufficiently accurate to the evidence. It supposes an internal collapse before the collapse of the facade, but as soon as the facade starts to fall it begins to deviate markedly from the video evidence. It is extremely clear that if the model here had been allowed to run for another second it would not resemble the video evidence at all. The video evidence strongly suggests the simultaneous failure of columns. The NIST model here shows what fire might do, but fire cannot cause columns to fail simultaneously and if this is NIST's best attempt to model the video evidence then fire must be discounted completely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems to me that the NIST WTC 7 report debunks the fire-induced collapse hypothesis by representing this computer model as its best attempt to prove the case. It is simply not sufficiently accurate to the evidence. It supposes an internal collapse before the collapse of the facade, but as soon as the facade starts to fall it begins to deviate markedly from the video evidence. It is extremely clear that if the model here had been allowed to run for another second it would not resemble the video evidence at all. The video evidence strongly suggests the simultaneous failure of columns. The NIST model here shows what fire might do, but fire cannot cause columns to fail simultaneously and if this is NIST's best attempt to model the video evidence then fire must be discounted completely.

I think if the simulation were allowed to run, then it would fall straight down - there's nothing supporting it at that point - which is why they stopped the simulation.

Don't you think if it were as obvious as that, then all the hundreds of thousands of structural engineering students in the world would be able to see the problem?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
I think if the simulation were allowed to run, then it would fall straight down - there's nothing supporting it at that point - which is why they stopped the simulation.
Really? It seems to me it is clearly falling away from the perspective of the model, which is to say, towards the damaged south side. The near vertical edge of the facade in the model moves in a way that is quite different to the observed direct fall of the facade in the video evidence. It seems to me that this deviation is increasing as the model runs on. It makes no sense to say a computer model would be stopped because it was accurately modelling an event. The model in this state represents less than half of the time the facade is seen to fall in the video evidence.

Don't you think if it were as obvious as that, then all the hundreds of thousands of structural engineering students in the world would be able to see the problem?
I certainly think hundreds of thousands of structural engineering should be allowed to test and examine the complete datasets of the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models NIST produced of this remarkable and unprecedented event in the history of structural engineering. It should be on every advanced structural engineering course as an object lesson in the remarkable power of fire to bring down buildings in near-symmetrical manner. But they can't, can they, because NIST has classified data and rendered its computer models untestable.

There's absolutely no scientifically credible reason to do so. Can you think of one? http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I certainly think hundreds of thousands of structural engineering should be allowed to test and examine the complete datasets of the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models NIST produced of this remarkable and unprecedented event in the history of structural engineering. It should be on every advanced structural engineering course as an object lesson in the remarkable power of fire to bring down buildings in near-symmetrical manner. But they can't, can they, because NIST has classified data and rendered its computer models untestable.

But my question is why can't they see what you see? I presume you are not a structural engineer? So all those hundreds of thousands of students should be able to form an even more accurate evaluation than you did, just by looking at it.

So why aren't they all up in arms?

Back to the simulation, I thought the argument against it was that it was TOO accurate, and that they had fitted to the data to match the observed events. You are saying something different to most truthers then, that it's not accurate enough? Is that right?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I think what he is seeing is the near side falling toward the far side of the building. It is likely it did start to fall that way, untill it ran into the mass of the other side falling. It is almost an optical illusion.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
I'm saying it doesn't much look like the event and you don't need to be a structural engineer to see that. Frankly I think a child could see how inaccurate the model is compared with the video evidence, but if you can't see it and if you think thousands of structural engineers would agree with you then that's your perspective.

I'm also saying it's bad science because some of the research data has been concealed for no scientifically credible reason. I don't know why scientists in general aren't up in arms about that either, but it's still the facts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm saying it doesn't much look like the event and you don't need to be a structural engineer to see that. Frankly I think a child could see how inaccurate the model is compared with the video evidence, but if you can't see it and if you think thousands of structural engineers would agree with you then that's your perspective.

Then why do all the other truthers claim it's rigged to look TOO MUCH like the event?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Then why do all the other truthers claim it's rigged to look TOO MUCH like the event?
Never heard that myself, but if you say so. There's plenty of 'truther' stuff like this on youtube pointing out how inaccurate the NIST model is though
I guess if NIST had published all its data like a credible scientific investigation, it wouldn't be a question either way.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But if you can already tell it's inaccurate, then what would releasing the data tell you? Surely the only reason to question it would be if it were TOO accurate?

You think they deliberately fudged the data to make it less accurate?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
But if you can already tell it's inaccurate, then what would releasing the data tell you? Surely the only reason to question it would be if it were TOO accurate?

You think they deliberately fudged the data to make it less accurate?
That's simply a matter of scientific principle. What credible publicly-funded scientific investigation doesn't publish all its research data and then uses the NCST Act to refuse FOIA requests from independent experts? There's nothing credible about that and absolutely no reason to do so. None.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's simply a matter of scientific principle. What credible publicly-funded scientific investigation doesn't publish all its research data and then uses the NCST Act to refuse FOIA requests from independent experts? There's nothing credible about that and absolutely no reason to do so. None.

I'd certainly prefer it if they did. But they didn't. Are you going to base your entire argument on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Leifer Bent Steel In Building Fires Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
jomper WTC 7 (Building 7) General Discussion 0
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2

Related Articles

Top