WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Landru]

Oh, which plane flew into WTC 7?

The basis of this, now seven page, thread started with the first post. Please read the thread and ask questions based on items that trouble you or you are unsure of.

 

[jomper]

I never mentioned planes, I mentioned the fire and the parts of th WTC that landed on it, not the planes

That's right. Mick mentioned planes in reply to post 243, which was quite clearly on the subject of WTC7. That's why I replied to his comment to point out it wasn't relevant.

Now, according to Landru, I'm the one who wasn't staying on topic.

Lol.

 

[jomper]

The basis of this, now seven page, thread started with the first post. Please read the thread and ask questions based on items that trouble you or you are unsure of.

If you had bothered to read the thread as far back as, say, post 199 -- instead of just to post 247 -- before jumping in to accuse me of going off topic, you would understand the question I have been asking.

 

[jomper]

If the fire didn't bring the building down, then WHAT did? You need another theory with at least as much evidence as the report shows. If not then demanding things is just a waste of time.

You understand that the scientific method involves looking at all the research data before coming up with a theory, and then testing and verifying it, right? Those are the things NIST doesn't want independent experts to do.

 

[Jazzy]

That's fine. If the report you base your opinions on was independently verifiable, they might be worth reading.

It is independently verifiable. It is an engineering report, based on mechanical engineering principles. Anyone can verify its work.

In the case where there was a security consideration, the report restricted information. That seems sensible to me, even at the risk of raising your ire.

What exactly is it that you're angry about?

 

[Mick West]

That's right. Mick mentioned planes in reply to post 243, which was quite clearly on the subject of WTC7. That's why I replied to his comment to point out it wasn't relevant..

I mentioned planes because it was suggested that nor releasing the collapse analysis was an incomplete investigation of the crime. I was suggesting that the crime was actually the flying of the plane into WTC1, which led to the fires in WTC7, and its collapse.

Now of course if you believe that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, then the crime is elsewhere. But from what I can see, the people investigating the WTC7 saw no reason to suspect that, even though they did consider it and did some analysis that showed there were no loud bangs that would indicate a demolition.

I can see why the truthers raise the issue, but there's really not enough evidence of controlled demolition to justify it. It seems almost like a last grasp attempt - they know the data will not be released, so they keep harping on it as if it's somehow significant. As if there actually was evidence of an additional crime.

jomper, is there actually a case you can make that suggests controlled demolition, that would justify more investigation?

 

[Grieves]

As if there actually was evidence of an additional crime.

See, this offends me. There's OBVIOUSLY evidence of an additional crime. Quite a bit of it, in fact. A choice was made to disregard it.

is there actually a case you can make that suggests controlled demolition, that would justify more investigation?

Typically when many multiple witnesses report a thing, some of them adamantly insisting upon it while having been very direct participants in the events, one investigates the possibility of that thing having taken place.
Is William Rodriguez, a man credited with saving many lives at great personal risk, a liar? An attention whore? Someone who was so distraught and disoriented by the events that his testimony is unreliable, and yet was collected enough to engage and succeed in independent rescue efforts?
If not, why were his statements, and the statements of everyone else who reported seeing, hearing, or directly experiencing explosions/explosives, largely if not entirely ignored?

 

[SR1419]

Typically when many multiple witnesses report a thing, some of them adamantly insisting upon it while having been very direct participanst in the events, one investigates the possibility of that thing having taken place.
Is William Rodriguez, a man credited with saving many lives at great personal risk, a liar? An attention whore? Someone who was so distraught and disoriented by the events that his testimony is unreliable, and yet was collected enough to engage and succeed in independent rescue efforts?
If not, why were his statements, and the statements of everyone else who reported seeing, hearing, or directly experiencing explosions/explosives, largely if not entirely ignored?

Rodriguez's account had nothing to do with WTC 7.

 

[Grieves]

Rodriguez's testimony had nothing to do with WTC 7.

is there actually a case you can make that suggests controlled demolition, that would justify more investigation?

What's with the recent trend of 'THAT'S UNRELATED....!'? I was responding directly to Mick's comment. Let's tone down the 'OP-Nazi' attitude a little. There are many testimonies relating to Building 7 specifically. I referenced Rodriquez as he's a prominent example of a witness to explosions with oodles of credibility who's testimony has clearly been disregarded by investigators.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
worth a read.

Conclusions


The two questions with which I began

my research have now been answered:

(1)

Griffin's 31 witnesses to explosions in
the FDNY oral histories are a subset of a
much larger body of witnesses, which I
have estimated as having 118 members.
(2)

Support for non-explosive collapse is present
in this material but is scarce. I have
found ten witnesses.

I do not know whether the FDNY witnesses
constitute a representative sample of
9/11 witnesses, but it is possible that they d
o. Certainly, there is no
lack of testimony to
explosions from those outside the FDNY,[38]
and I see no obvious reason why firefighters
and medics would be more prone than others to
feel that they were witnessing explosions. If
they constitute a representative sample, then
a minimum of 23% of all witnesses to the
Towers' collapses appear to have perceived,
or thought they perceived, explosions that
brought down the Towers.

 

[SR1419]

What's with the recent trend of 'THAT'S UNRELATED....!'? I was responding directly to Mick's comment. Let's tone down the 'OP-Nazi' attitude a little. There are many testimonies relating to Building 7 specifically. I referenced Rodriquez as he's a prominent example of a witness to explosions with oodles of credibility who's testimony has clearly been disregarded by investigators.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
worth a read.

He did NOT witness any explosions.

Though Rodriguez' October 2004 lawsuit Rodriguez v. Bush alleges that bombs were planted in the sub-basement and the Twin Towers brought down by controlled demolition, no claim is made there that Rodriguez witnessed any explosives or incendiary devices himself.

His accounts are consistent with other accounts of jet fuel fire balls traveling down elevators shafts:

the fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

His claims have come under fire from both "truthers" and debunkers:

In 2005, Rodriguez made this claim: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower." Source Yet the handwritten notes by his two interviewers show no such claims about explosives, just as Rodriguez made no such claim in TV interviews in 2001 and 2002, in his statement to NIST, or in his 2004 conspiracy lawsuit against the United States.

Likewise, the notes show that Rodriguez made no mention of suspicions that the attacks were a U.S. government "inside job" and subsequent cover-up, or that his accounts of that day were censored by the anyone.

I encourage you to review this article on Rodriquez:

https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/

 

[Oxymoron]

Sorry, but there is. Such events (the bringing down of large buildings) could be repeated.

Quite the reverse of what truthers say, slender column trussed towers with long-span floors are NOT highly-redundant, and are peculiarly prone to fire by differential expansion and detachment of floors causing column buckling. Armed with the specific knowledge recently gained (the original architects didn't foresee terrorist attack) it is not impossible to bring down similar buildings by means other than aircraft. There are many such buildings.

Revealing to the public domain details of such weaknesses is foolish, because terrorists are part of the public too.

Amazing how there has not been one retrofit to correct this flaw. As stated earlier in thread... you, (and NIST), are saying there are lots of these buildings which could be brought down in similar fashion by an office fire yet alone an attack.

 

[SR1419]

Amazing how there has not been one retrofit to correct this flaw. As stated earlier in thread... you, (and NIST), are saying there are lots of these buildings which could be brought down in similar fashion by an office fire yet alone an attack.

perhaps no "retrofit"s but there have been changes to building codes for new buildings as a result of 9/11:

It is not practical to design tall buildings to resist terrorist attacks. However, the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001 highlighted several concerns unique to tall buildings subject to
extreme events. Observations resulting from the World Trade Center's post-attack perfor-
mance investigation included: failure of active and passive fire protection systems, impor-
tance of structural redundancy, and performance of egress systems. These observations led to
recommendations for code modifications. Many recommendations have been incorporated
by the International Code Council into the International Building Code's 2012 edition....

Recommendations from the original Structural Engineering Institute, ASCE and
FEMA sponsored report recommended several building code changes. Additional
work by NIST and NIBS has resulted in more than 17 code changes.
These code changes will produce buildings that have significantly improved resistance to
extreme loads. Although some of the changes will increase costs of tall buildings, the overall
increase is expected to be relatively small.

http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=+Yb7cly6880=&tabid=2684&language=en-US

 

[Oxymoron]

perhaps no "retrofit"s but there have been changes to building codes for new buildings as a result of 9/11:

Yes recommendations which have not really been taken seriously... extra lighting and signs, extra exits... nothing serious.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/are-ta...ult-of-the-nist-wtc-911-investigation/5309676

In 2008, NIST began claiming that its investigation would help ensure the safety of future buildings. NIST said that such buildings "should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall" as a result of the WTC investigation. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, the Bush Administration cabinet member in charge of NIST at the time, said –

"The lessons learned from the tragic events of 9/11 h ave yielded stronger building and fire codes for a new generation of safer, more robust buildings across the nation." [1]

Is this true? If so, we should be able to see improvements being made to the design and construction processes for tall buildings around the world. We should also expect that existing buildings would be evaluated for design problems and retrofitted in an urgent manner to ensure that fires do not bring buildings crashing down as they did on 9/11, killing thousands of unsuspecting victims.

Unfortunately, there are no signs that such design evaluations and retrofit projects have occurred. This is a strong indication that the international building community has not taken the NIST WTC reports seriously.


In a few stunning instances, the NIST findings were never considered at all prior to building design and construction. An example is the new WTC building 7, which was fully completed in 2006. That same year, NlST spokesman Shyam Sunder was saying "We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7."[2] To clarify, in 2006 NIST had no idea what happened to the original WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane yet collapsed into its own footprint in a matter of seconds on 9/11. Therefore the new, even taller, WTC 7 could not have incorporated any design or construction changes resulting from the NIST investigation. Apparently people still use the building, however, and do not seem bothered by the risk.

With respect to the fireproofing (i.e. insulation) loss in the towers, NIST said –

"The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
At the time of the 9/11 attacks, the WTC towers were undergoing a fireproofing upgrade to better ensure the buildings' fire resistance. In an incredible coincidence, the floors where the full fireproofing upgrades had been completed were the same floors that were struck by the aircraft on 9/11.[5]

 

[SR1419]

Yes recommendations which have not really been taken seriously... extra lighting and signs, extra exits... nothing serious.

nothing serious?? hardly- the recommendations were quite serious- this is but a sample

1. Prevent progressive collapse by
development and nationwide adoption of
standards and code provisions, and
develop a standard methodology –
supported by analytical design tools and
practical design.

2. Develop national standards for (1)
conducting wind tunnel testing of
prototype structures and (2) estimating
wind loads and their effects on tall
buildings for use in design.

3. Develop criteria to enhance tall building
performance by limiting sway under
lateral load design conditions (e.g., winds
and earthquakes).

4. Evaluate the technical basis for
determining appropriate construction
classification and fire rating requirements
(especially for tall buildings), and explicitly
consider factors including:
• timely access by emergency responders
• the extent to which redundancy in active
fire systems should be credited for
occupant life safety
• the need for redundancy in fire
protection systems that are critical to
structural integrity
• the ability of the structure and local floor
systems to withstand a maximum
credible fire scenario without collapse
• the effect of spaces containing unusually
large fuel concentrations
• the extent to which fire control systems
should be credited as part of the
prevention of fire spread.

5. Establish a capability for studying and
testing components, assemblies, and
systems under realistic fire and load
conditions, and improve the technical
basis for the century-old standard for fire
resistance testing.

6. Require a performance objective where
uncontrolled building fires result in
burnout without partial or global collapse.

7. Adopt and use the "structural frame"
approach to fire resistance ratings.

8. Develop criteria, test methods, and
standards (1) for the in-service
performance of sprayed fire-resistive
materials and (2) ensure that these
materials, as installed, conform to

9. Develop performance-based standards
and code provisions, to enable the design
and retrofit of structures to resist real
building fire conditions, and methods
necessary to evaluate the fire
performance of the structure as a whole
system.

10. Develop and evaluate new fire-resistive
coating materials and technologies with
significantly enhanced performance and
durability.

11. Evaluate the performance and suitability
of advanced structural steel, reinforced
and pre-stressed concrete, and other
high-performance material systems for
use in building fires.

12. Enhance the performance and possibly
the redundancy of active fire protection
systems to accommodate greater risks
associated with increasing building
height, including higher threat profile.
....

The actual changes to the code were less dramatic but still more than "nothing serious"

The national code improvements include glow-in-the-dark exit markings in stairways; a third or fourth stairway depending on the building's height; greater separation between those stairways to lessen the chance of a single calamity disabling all of them; stickier, more robust fire-proofing, with inspections to ensure its proper application; backup water supplies for sprinklers; impact-resistant walls around elevator and stairwell shafts; fortified elevators that firefighters and, in some cases, occupants can use in an emergency; stricter and more consistent fire-resistance standards for skyscrapers' structural components; radio amplifiers that help rescuers better communicate inside buildings; and improved emergency evacuation plans and disaster drills.

 

[Oxymoron]

nothing serious?? hardly- the recommendations were quite serious- this is but a sample


The actual changes to the code were less dramatic but still more than "nothing serious"

The national code improvements include glow-in-the-dark exit markings in stairways; a third or fourth stairway depending on the building's height; greater separation between those stairways to lessen the chance of a single calamity disabling all of them; stickier, more robust fire-proofing, with inspections to ensure its proper application; backup water supplies for sprinklers; impact-resistant walls around elevator and stairwell shafts; fortified elevators that firefighters and, in some cases, occupants can use in an emergency; stricter and more consistent fire-resistance standards for skyscrapers' structural components; radio amplifiers that help rescuers better communicate inside buildings; and improved emergency evacuation plans and disaster drills.

Like I said extra lighting and signs, extra exits.. I missed out the fire drills and improved evacuation plans. Boffins at their best eh? Radical. And after the next fiasco we will see more 'radical changes' and it will be 'ah but now we have the improved model'.

Or like Cairenn says... 'Can you cite an instance of torture by the U.S since sept 2010?'

'Can you cite an instance where a building collapsed 'since the last one?''

 

[SR1419]

Like I said extra lighting and signs, extra exits.. I missed out the fire drills and improved evacuation plans. Boffins at their best eh? Radical.

no- you said the "recommendations" were nothing serious- when in fact they were very serious.

[...]

The actual code changes were not as robust but still serious

more robust fire-proofing, with inspections to ensure its proper application; backup water supplies for sprinklers; impact-resistant walls around elevator and stairwell shafts; fortified elevators that firefighters and, in some cases, occupants can use in an emergency; stricter and more consistent fire-resistance standards for skyscrapers' structural

 

[Oxymoron]

no- you said the "recommendations" were nothing serious- when in fact they were very serious.

[...]

The actual code changes were not as robust but still serious

more robust fire-proofing, with inspections to ensure its proper application; backup water supplies for sprinklers; impact-resistant walls around elevator and stairwell shafts; fortified elevators that firefighters and, in some cases, occupants can use in an emergency; stricter and more consistent fire-resistance standards for skyscrapers' structural

No, I said

Yes recommendations which have not really been taken seriously... extra lighting and signs, extra exits... nothing serious.

, which I thought would be clear to anyone as meaning... 'the recommendations were not taken seriously as is evidenced by the results, i.e. merely extra lighting etc'.

[...]

 

[SR1419]

No, I said , which I thought would be clear to anyone as meaning... 'the recommendations were not taken seriously as is evidenced by the results, i.e. merely extra lighting etc'.

[...]

its not clear because there were recommendations and there were actual code changes...

You insinuated the recommendations were "extra lighting...nothing serious".

[...]

Moreover, the code changes were more than "merely extra lighting".

Try and stick to the facts.

 

[Mick West]

I feel this thread might need a time out. As it seems to have degenerated into sniping. I've removed and/or edited a few posts to cut out that sort of thing.

 

[Landru]

That's right. Mick mentioned planes in reply to post 243, which was quite clearly on the subject of WTC7. That's why I replied to his comment to point out it wasn't relevant.

Now, according to Landru, I'm the one who wasn't staying on topic.

Lol.

I didn't say you were off topic. I said your question was asked in post #1 and has been discussed for seven pages. I will repeat, please read the thread and ask questions based on items that trouble you or you are unsure of.

 

[jomper]

I didn't say you were off topic. I said your question was asked in post #1 and has been discussed for seven pages. I will repeat, please read the thread and ask questions based on items that trouble you or you are unsure of.

And I will repeat: I summarised my question at post 199, shortly after joining the discussion. Did you look? I don't think you can have done because it's not the same question as post 1.

 

[jomper]

In the case where there was a security consideration, the report restricted information. That seems sensible to me

Does it? Perhaps we should subject these "security considerations" to a brief analysis and consider just how sensible they really are.

Are you able to suggest even one that doesn't sound like an absurdly paranoid fantasy? To be clear: these "security considerations" not only have to stand up as rational propositions in themselves, they also have to explain how a computer model of fire in one building reveals weaknesses in other buildings that could be exploited by explosives, for that is the suggestion. Furthermore this "sensitive but transferrable building weakness information" would have to be unavailable elsewhere to a determined would-be bomber, and would need to be more specific than the general expertise of a controlled demolition expert or structural engineer, whilst still being somehow transferrable between buildings.

Does any of this seem sensible to you? Even if you were able to come up with a rational "security consideration" that fulfils these requirements, it would need to be more compelling than two extremely important and powerful counter-arguments: the over-arching requirement of the scientific method for complete scientific transparency that exists in all credible research, and the obvious need for independent structural engineers to be allowed to fully examine and understand the remarkable collapse of WTC 7 in the interests of public safety.

If you can't address this, I suggest you're supporting a critical failing of the WTC 7 report -- which has huge consequences -- for no reason other than an unquestioning deference to authority.

 

[Cairenn]

If it did not fail like the report says it did, then HOW did it and what evidence of that do you have?

No matter what you may think, it does not look it imploded to me. Wasn't you that mentioned it leaning some?

 

[Jazzy]

these "security considerations" not only have to stand up as rational propositions in themselves

Nothing preceding them in the report is in any way irrational. Your implication otherwise is more so.

they also have to explain how a computer model of fire in one building reveals weaknesses in other buildings that could be exploited by explosives, for that is the suggestion.

And I would have thought that that fact is sufficient.

this "sensitive but transferrable building weakness information" would have to be unavailable elsewhere to a determined would-be bomber

Nothing is unavailable to someone sufficiently determined.

would need to be more specific than the general expertise of a controlled demolition expert or structural engineer

As was the scenario we all experienced. Only the security services might hold similar information. But if a terrorist gets the best training...

whilst still being somehow transferrable between buildings.

That is what engineering is.

Does any of this seem sensible to you?

All of it.

the over-arching requirement of the scientific method for complete scientific transparency

There surely is. But the NIST Report was NOT a "scientific experiment" carried out in "blue sky".

the obvious need for independent structural engineers to be allowed to fully examine and understand

Was fulfilled.

the remarkable collapse of WTC 7

Was not remarkable in view of the actual circumstances.

in the interests of public safety.

I'm sure we're all against sin. Some of us without pomp.

If you can't address this, I suggest you're supporting a critical failing of the WTC 7 report -- which has huge consequences -- for no reason other than an unquestioning deference to authority.

Well, it's addressed.

Now attend to that plank in your eye. The plank that turns "reason" into "deference". You'll see much better with that out of the way.

 

[jomper]

I take it from all this that you're quite unable to offer a scenario that justifies hiding scientific data from independent experts. Lol.

 

[jomper]

See post 252.

 

[Jazzy]

I take it from all this that you're quite unable to offer a scenario that justifies hiding scientific data from independent experts. Lol.

I just did. ?

"a computer model of fire in one building reveals weaknesses in other buildings that could be exploited by explosives"

It would be better to leave out "explosives" and leave it as "exploited".

See post 252.

See post 253.

It is independently verifiable. It is an engineering report, based on mechanical engineering principles. Anyone can verify its work.

So? What's the problem? Verify it or falsify it. There you go...

 

[jomper]

No, that was a little Gish gallop with a reference to training duh tuh rusts. Did you not see NIST's response to FOIA requests l posted?

 

[JRBids]

Originally Posted by Cairenn
If the fire didn't bring the building down, then WHAT did? You need another theory with at least as much evidence as the report shows. If not then demanding things is just a waste of time.



You understand that the scientific method involves looking at all the research data before coming up with a theory, and then testing and verifying it, right? Those are the things NIST doesn't want independent experts to do.

Again: if the fire didn't bring the building down, what did?

 

[JRBids]

Is William Rodriguez, a man credited with saving many lives at great personal risk, a liar? An attention whore? Someone who was so distraught and disoriented by the events that his testimony is unreliable, and yet was collected enough to engage and succeed in independent rescue efforts?
If not, why were his statements, and the statements of everyone else who reported seeing, hearing, or directly experiencing explosions/explosives, largely if not entirely ignored?

That was NOT building 7. William Rodriguez was in WTC 1 or 2, dont remember which. He said he heard a bang in the basement before the first plane hit. If you are citing these bangs that occurred before the first plane hit as evidence of CD, why did it take the buildings so long to fall in this "controlled demotion"?

 

[jomper]

Again: if the fire didn't bring the building down, what did?

Again: I don't see what you don't get about the scientific method. You look at all the data before coming up with a theory. Then you test and verify the theory. NIST has a problem with independent experts looking at all its data and testing and verifying its theory. That's why the report is pseudo-science. You don't need an alternative theory to see that and it's disingenuous to demand one.

 

[Cairenn]

Is there any EVIDENCE for a alternative theory?

The testing and data, said it fell from the fire and from damage from debris. Why do keep denying that?

 

[Mick West]

Again: I don't see what you don't get about the scientific method. You look at all the data before coming up with a theory. Then you test and verify the theory. NIST has a problem with independent experts looking at all its data and testing and verifying its theory. That's why the report is pseudo-science. You don't need an alternative theory to see that and it's disingenuous to demand one.

But everyone really has the same theory - the fire caused the collapse. All you are niggling about is exactly how it caused it.

 

[jomper]

It is independently verifiable... Anyone can verify its work.

That's a false statement, unless you think a computer model can be verified without, among other things, the "spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities" -- in which case it's a false and ignorant statement. http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

Still waiting for a credible reason why independent experts such as Ronald Brookman shouldn't be allowed to examine the "new phenomenon of thermal expansion" Dr Sunder et al claimed to have identified using the NIST model. If someone claimed they'd discovered a remarkable "new phenomenon" that causes buildings to fall straight down but refused to explain it properly, why should you believe them? Just because you want to?

 

[jomper]

The testing and data

...cannot be independently verified. That's not denial, that's just the facts.

 

[JRBids]

Originally Posted by JRBids
Again: if the fire didn't bring the building down, what did?[/QUOTE]

Again: I don't see what you don't get about the scientific method. You look at all the data before coming up with a theory. Then you test and verify the theory. NIST has a problem with independent experts looking at all its data and testing and verifying its theory. That's why the report is pseudo-science. You don't need an alternative theory to see that and it's disingenuous to demand one.

Are you saying you don't believe that fire brought the building down, but there is no other theory? Why is is so hard to get a concise answer? Can you explain in a nutshell what exactly is pseudo-science about the report? You say you don't need an alternative theory to throw the first theory out, but why would you if there were no other theory?

 

[jomper]

But everyone really has the same theory - the fire caused the collapse. All you are niggling about is exactly how it caused it.

That's right, Mick. Failing to respect the scientific method, the foundation on which all scientific knowledge is based, is only a niggle.

 

[Mick West]

That's right, Mick. Failing to respect the scientific method, the foundation on which all scientific knowledge is based, is only a niggle.

But that's not what happened. They just did not release some data that would only change the precise sequence of events of the collapse. The building still burned for 8 hours.

And can you quote the context of where NIST said: "new phenomenon of thermal expansion"

 

[jomper]

Can you explain in a nutshell what exactly is pseudo-science about the report?

Sure. The report's conclusions are based on a computer model that can't be independently verified because some of it has been classified. That makes it pseudo-science. It can't be defended against accusation of drylabbing. Is that concise and direct enough for you?

You say you don't need an alternative theory to throw the first theory out, but why would you if there were no other theory?

How can I explain this to you in simple terms? Suppose you've built a rickety flying machine in your back yard and have a theory that it'll take you across the Grand Canyon. I don't need to build a Cessna to know you're going to kill yourself.

 

[Mick West]

Sure. The report's conclusions are based on a computer model that can't be independently verified because some of it has been classified. That makes it pseudo-science. It can't be defended against accusation of drylabbing. Is that concise and direct enough for you?

If you don't trust them, then ignore the conclusions. Take the publicly available data, and figure it out for yourself.

Or have you already ruled out the possibility of collapse due to fire?