What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like?

I would have them investigate the possibility of controlled demolition and actually work out where the charges would have to be placed in order for the building to fall how it did, then try to work backwards and see if that could be replicated with fire alone. I don't think it could because one is a highly precise synchronized operation, and the other is a random organic event.
 
@gerrycan

The way you are responding to this question is essentially proving the argument of @Bill .

While I am skeptical of the NIST report, I can describe an investigation that would satisfy me regardless of the outcome.
 
I would have them investigate the possibility of controlled demolition and actually work out where the charges would have to be placed in order for the building to fall how it did, then try to work backwards and see if that could be replicated with fire alone. I don't think it could because one is a highly precise synchronized operation, and the other is a random organic event.

That makes no sense. Why would a fire have to duplicate the effects of explosives? Your new investigation seems heavily skewed towards explosives. Don't you want it to be acceptable to everyone?

Why not try to simply simulate the effects of fire (in great detail, with a very wide range of possible variables), and see what happens? And at the same time, figure out a variety of explosive/incendiary scenarios (plus fire), and simulate them too?
 
Considering that NIST said that they were unaware of any other highrise ever collapsing due to fire, and given that the only other known mechanism for such a destruction would be explosive controlled demolition, then surely that is a good place to start, because it is a topic and mechanism that is known about. Nobody has a frame of reference for a fire induced collapse, because it is unprecedented. Do you think that the collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition at all?
 
Considering that NIST said that they were unaware of any other highrise ever collapsing due to fire, and given that the only other known mechanism for such a destruction would be explosive controlled demolition, then surely that is a good place to start, because it is a topic and mechanism that is known about. Nobody has a frame of reference for a fire induced collapse, because it is unprecedented. Do you think that the collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition at all?

It superficially resembled it in the videos, sure. Nobody has ever denied that.

But the most obvious thing to look at first was fire and impact damage, as the building was on fire, it had impact damage, and at the time the people actually on the ground thought it collapsed due to fire.

Nobody had ever covertly demolished a skyscraper before either.
 
It superficially resembled it in the videos, sure. Nobody has ever denied that.
Ok so surely, working out where and when the building would have to fail to induse such a collapse would be a valid place to start to build a hypothesis then, regardless of the mechanism. Otherwise, how would you quantify it?

But the most obvious thing to look at first was fire and impact damage, as the building was on fire, it had impact damage, and at the time the people actually on the ground thought it collapsed due to fire
But fire has never done this before. Why would it be natural to presume that the cause was an unprecedented one, rather than the alternative. No highrise steel building has ever collapsed in this way due to anything but a controlled demolition. That would surely therefor be a far more obvious cause than something unprecedented.
Nobody had ever covertly demolished a skyscraper before either.
How do you know? What we do know is that fire has never demolished a skyscraper before, so why would fire be an obvious cause to consider in your opinion?
 
Ok so surely, working out where and when the building would have to fail to induse such a collapse would be a valid place to start to build a hypothesis then, regardless of the mechanism. Otherwise, how would you quantify it?

That's what NIST did. They hypothezized it looked like column 79 had buckled.

But fire has never done this before. Why would it be natural to presume that the cause was an unprecedented one, rather than the alternative. No highrise steel building has ever collapsed in this way due to anything but a controlled demolition. That would surely therefor be a far more obvious cause than something unprecedented.

But it's quite well known that fire can bring down a steel framed building

upload_2013-10-13_14-2-55.png

Some quite tall ones too:

upload_2013-10-13_14-5-48.png

So it seems quite sensible to see if there's any way it could have brought down this building.
 
But it's quite well known that fire can bring down a steel framed building.
You should inform NIST of this, because in the public briefing of Aug 08 , Shyam Sunder stated that NIST were not aware of any other steel building over 14 storeys (highrise) ever coming down due to fire. Are you saying that they are also wrong about this?
 
You should inform NIST of this, because in the public briefing of Aug 08 , Shyam Sunder stated that NIST were not aware of any other steel building over 14 storeys (highrise) ever coming down due to fire. Are you saying that they are also wrong about this?

What happens after 14 stories?

The effects of fire on steel are the same regardless of the height. You know that if there was no fireproofing in WTC7 then it would have collapsed in some way. Fireproofing only slows it down.

An investigation should look at fire as a potential cause of collapse. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
 
What happens after 14 stories?

The effects of fire on steel are the same regardless of the height. You know that if there was no fireproofing in WTC7 then it would have collapsed in some way. Fireproofing only slows it down.

An investigation should look at fire as a potential cause of collapse. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
I never said that they shouldn't. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Controlled demolition is quantifiable and therefor does represent a good startt point for knowing what would be required. Collapse by fire is unprecedented, so there is no frame of reference for it. I never once said that fire should not be considered.
 
I never said that they shouldn't. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Controlled demolition is quantifiable and therefor does represent a good startt point for knowing what would be required. Collapse by fire is unprecedented, so there is no frame of reference for it. I never once said that fire should not be considered.

Unprecedented in such a tall building, yes. But not unprecedented.

So HOW should the fire be considered? Run some fire and damage simulations, see what happens?
 
Unprecedented in such a tall building, yes. But not unprecedented.

So HOW should the fire be considered? Run some fire and damage simulations, see what happens?
I think you should refer to what Sunder actually said. As for the fire simulations, it is difficult to imagine how one could get an organic process to mimic something as highly synchronised and precise as a controlled demolition. And as you said, it appeared to be like one. Still I guess it would be worth running some simulations to see if it possibly could. I would guess that if NIST could have released such an analysis and backed it up with a simulation then they would have, but as you have stated, none of their analysis does this.
 
I think you should refer to what Sunder actually said. As for the fire simulations, it is difficult to imagine how one could get an organic process to mimic something as highly synchronised and precise as a controlled demolition. And as you said, it appeared to be like one.

Superficially, in that the building fell down. In the same way that being shot in the head can look like a heart attack from a distance.

Still I guess it would be worth running some simulations to see if it possibly could. I would guess that if NIST could have released such an analysis and backed it up with a simulation then they would have, but as you have stated, none of their analysis does this.

Erm, yes it does. Just not in sufficient detail to be conclusive as to the precise sequence of events.
 
Superficially, in that the building fell down. In the same way that being shot in the head can look like a heart attack from a distance.
Again, that's nothing like what Sunder said in the conference. The fact remains that NIST had all the detail they needed not to have to do a long distance diagnosis.
Erm, yes it does. Just not in sufficient detail to be conclusive as to the precise sequence of events.
If they were in any way close, why would NIST not just release the data, it cannot harm public safety because their report, according to most debunkers, explains what happened to the building reasonably, and so would contain enough detail to threaten public safety, if it were anything like realistic, which they are not.
 
So about this new investigation then....

How should we structure it to be trustworthy?

How much do you think it will cost?
 
So about this new investigation then....

How should we structure it to be trustworthy?

How much do you think it will cost?
Not a clue on the cost, but i do think that 2 separate groups should study this so we can see if their conclusions match, and that the family members should be there to oversee the process.
 
Not a clue on the cost, but i do think that 2 separate groups should study this so we can see if their conclusions match, and that the family members should be there to oversee the process.

Estimate the cost from the scope you require. Just do man years x $100k. Plus maybe 50% for computing time.

Why family members? And which? There's thousands of them. Just any who ask? Do they get to sit in the office all day, or what?
 
Estimate the cost from the scope you require. Just do man years x $100k. Plus maybe 50% for computing time.

Why family members? And which? There's thousands of them. Just any who ask? Do they get to sit in the office all day, or what?
I really would have difficulty in putting a cost on it, I don't know how long it would take. As for family members I think that they could represent an important contribution to such an investigation in that they are the people who lost the most and would presumably have no motive other than getting to the truth. Many were so disappointed with the first investigation that they deserve to review any subsequent one in full, and have their opinions/voices heard in it even.
 
As for family members I think that they could represent an important contribution to such an investigation in that they are the people who lost the most and would presumably have no motive other than getting to the truth. Many were so disappointed with the first investigation that they deserve to review any subsequent one in full, and have their opinions/voices heard in it even.

With all due respect and sympathy to those family members, I disagree. The family members want justice, which in highly emotional cases can be close to vengeance. If the family members already have formed a strong opinion as to who is responsible, then they would be terribly disappointed if nothing really changes in the official story.

We are all familiar with court cases where someone accused of murder is set free due to lack of evidence, and the family is very upset because they think he is guilty. That's why you don't have a family member sit on the jury.

They can observe, like family members can sit in the court, but to suggest they should have a significant input is not really appropriate.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect and sympathy to those family members, I disagree. The family members want justice, which in highly emotional cases can be close to vengeance. If the family members already have formed a strong opinion as to who is responsible, then they would be terribly disappointed if nothing really changes in the official story.

We are all familiar with court cases where someone accused of murder is set free due to lack of evidence, and the family is very upset because they think he is guilty. That's why you don't have a family member sit on the jury.

They can observe, like family members can sit in the court, but to suggest they should have a significant input is not really appropriate.
Yes, I agree in the main with that. I would suggest that the comments as to satisfaction with the report from the family members would be added afterwards and published along with the report itself. At least that way their objections and agreements are allowed to be aired publicly. That is my idea of their significant input, I wasn't suggesting that they actually help to form the analysis. I maybe should have made that clearer.
 
Yes, I agree in the main with that. I would suggest that the comments as to satisfaction with the report from the family members would be added afterwards and published along with the report itself. At least that way their objections and agreements are allowed to be aired publicly. That is my idea of their significant input, I wasn't suggesting that they actually help to form the analysis. I maybe should have made that clearer.

Sounds reasonable.
 
So any ideas as to how form these two groups? Any criteria for avoiding conflicts of interests or pressure from a possible corrupt agency involved in 9/11?
 
So any ideas as to how form these two groups? Any criteria for avoiding conflicts of interests or pressure from a possible corrupt agency involved in 9/11?

I would like to see the group or groups drawing from, amongst others, publishing academic scientists (civil engineers, forensics, etc). I do not want to see anyone from magazines (like Popular Mechanics). Scientists have to face their peers daily.
 
I would like to see the group or groups drawing from, amongst others, publishing academic scientists (civil engineers, forensics, etc). I do not want to see anyone from magazines (like Popular Mechanics). Scientists have to face their peers daily.
Totally agree with the popular mechanics bit. Bought and paid for by the Hearst corporation, these guys mostly have media degrees, which is totally obvious to the more technically inclined. It is very difficult to imagine a group that is outside the influence of the powers that be in the US, and it is for this reason, that I think that 2 independent groups who are sealed from each other is a good option. It is more of a scientific approach to an investigation.
 
So about this new investigation then....

How should we structure it to be trustworthy?

How much do you think it will cost?
I think all that could be done now is a focused and transparent examination of multiple samples of dust, with the objective of eliminating the explosives/accelerants hypothesis. The problem with the NIST report is it doesn't address the controlled demolition hypothesis directly, as if it could falsify the fire/damage hypothesis.

You accept that the collapse does resemble a controlled demolition, so are you genuinely persuaded that this possibility was scientifically eliminated by NIST?

You may say this is one of my pet questions but that is not in fact the case. It is merely that I repeatedly take this approach because I think it is something "meta" to the adversarial polarisation of the truthers/debunkers debate that Metabunk is a part of, and it not something that I have seen directly addressed in the time I have been posting here.

A simple thought experiment would involve moving the WTC 7 event to happen on a day other than 9/11. A skyscraper in your nearest city catches fire, and completely collapses in a sudden, swift and symmetrical fashion. The investigation takes seven years, loses all the physical evidence, tests no residue and asserts that fire alone was the cause while producing a dodgy computer animation.

Cue endless and exhausting debate because the obvious impression of controlled demolition was not properly confronted. Microspheres? Thermite? Freefall? None of these should ever have ended up being argued over in forums like Metabunk. NFPA 921 just states the obvious: accelerants must be tested for in cases like this.

And that's what would be required this time. Multiple independent studies of dust and multiple independent expert conclusions: ideally an international effort involving scientists from the Muslim world, where skepticism is rife, and Israelis -- followed by a scientific summit

/hopelessidealism
 
Last edited:
You accept that the collapse does resemble a controlled demolition, so are you genuinely persuaded that this possibility was scientifically eliminated by NIST?

I am altering an assertion I made earlier. I was wrong.

Given that controlled demolition would be the only established scientific explanation before the study begins, the study would have to consider this possibility and either prove or refute it.
 
Your thought experiment is not a good one, since WTC7 did not collapse in a 'vacuum' of other events. The fires were started because part of WTC1 landed in on it. There were almost 3000 people killed in the other part of that day's disaster.

You can't divorce it from that day.
 
And that's what would be required this time. Multiple independent studies of dust and multiple independent expert conclusions: ideally an international effort involving scientists from the Muslim world, where skepticism is rife, and Israelis -- followed by a scientific summit

/hopelessidealism

One reason it's hopeless is that most people seem to think there's insufficient evidence to suggest a new investigation is needed, let alone such a world-scale one as you are suggesting.

Richard Gage should take a two year sabbatical, AE911 would save $250K in salary and expenses. Spend it on independent dust tests. That should be all you need.
 
Your thought experiment is not a good one, since WTC7 did not collapse in a 'vacuum' of other events. The fires were started because part of WTC1 landed in on it. There were almost 3000 people killed in the other part of that day's disaster.

You can't divorce it from that day.
The thought experiment was to do just that, Cairenn, in order to perceive how poor the investigation really was. To refuse to exercise your imagination in this way is not to debunk the point.

I hardly need to remind you that NIST did not consider the damage from WTC1 a major factor in its collapse hypothesis.
 
One reason it's hopeless is that most people seem to think there's insufficient evidence to suggest a new investigation is needed, let alone such a world-scale one as you are suggesting.
You asked me to address the question for the sake of argument before banning me; I have now done so (and the "hopeless idealism" remark is an acknowledgement it's unlikely: rather predictable you would focus on that).

How exactly does the absence of evidence affect the necessity of investigation? If a (re)investigation is necessary and evidence has been destroyed, where does the responsibility for that lie? Are you really saying there's no dust of good provenance left?

The main question I was asking you in that post, though, was this:

You accept that the collapse does resemble a controlled demolition, so are you genuinely persuaded that this possibility was scientifically eliminated by NIST?
 
Can we understand from this that you support a new investigation which eliminates the possibility of accelerants being involved, Pete, instead of sidestepping the question?

Sure why not, (if resources were unlimited), if it would end this endless rift and division.

But mainly we can understand from this that I frequently find the constant arguing over esoteric points and the associated 'your position is inferior' comments exasperating to watch.
Why can't we all just get along?
My tolerance/annoyance for the whole debate seems to come in cycles that may have to do with the moon.


What elements does a test eliminating the possibility of accelerants have? Access to original steel is impossible at this point isn't it? So it would largely be theoretical.
By accelerants you mean a fuel that accelerates the present fire and weakens the structure in such a way as available fuel/conditions could not?
That means you have to properly account for the known available elements in order to eliminate their influence from the equation.

(No point in particular, just sayin'.)
 
You accept that the collapse does resemble a controlled demolition, so are you genuinely persuaded that this possibility was scientifically eliminated by NIST?

What does "scientifically eliminated" mean? And how would it be done in a new WTC7 collapse investigation?
 
What does "scientifically eliminated" mean? And how would it be done in a new WTC7 collapse investigation?
Well, NIST eliminated the question of controlled demolition from its investigation, didn't it? So do you think it examined the possibility with sufficient scientific diligence before doing so, or is there more that it could reasonably have done?

In short, do you think NIST's rationale for eliminating the controlled demolition hypothesis represents a sufficiently exhaustive attempt to falsify it? If not, those concerns would form part of a new investigation.

Earlier today you made the peculiar assertion that "most people" think there's not enough evidence left to make a new investigation necessary. If this is to become an argument from popularity I would suggest "most people" think WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition.

So do you really believe NIST eliminated the possibility in a manner than most people would call scientific?
 
Well, NIST eliminated the question of controlled demolition from its investigation, didn't it? So do you think it examined the possibility with sufficient scientific diligence before doing so, or is there more that it could reasonably have done?

In short, do you think NIST's rationale for eliminating the controlled demolition hypothesis represents a sufficiently exhaustive attempt to falsify it? If not, those concerns would form part of a new investigation.

Earlier today you made the peculiar assertion that "most people" think there's not enough evidence left to make a new investigation necessary. If this is to become an argument from popularity I would suggest "most people" think WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition.

So do you really believe NIST eliminated the possibility in a manner than most people would call scientific?

You keep trying to go off topic. Just say what you think should be in a new test. This is your final warning.
 
I think the single most important requirement for a new investigation would be to eliminate as much bias (or percieved bias) as possible.

Which would mean zero government funding, and either anonymously funded or equal funding from both sides. Of course getting anything from people that think a new investigation would be a waste of time and money might prove difficult. I know I wouldn't donate.

Then you have to figure out a way to chose investigators who have no beliefs either way. And who can demonstrate this to both sides to their satisfaction. In other words, it will require a team who is both competent to perform the investigation, and who has never so much as read anything about 7WTC. Good luck with that.

Failure to remove all bias will end up with the conclusions under fire due to mistrust. Which is invoked in regards to the NIST investigation on a regular basis.

Ultimately, I suspect a new investigation wouldn't solve anything anyway. There are people too entrenched in their views (on both sides) to accept any other answers.
 
If "they" think that Govt is "doing it" then wouldn't Govt funding count against one side - "dollar for dollar" - which would make the funding a bit easier??
 
If "they" think that Govt is "doing it" then wouldn't Govt funding count against one side - "dollar for dollar" - which would make the funding a bit easier??

Theoretically, yes. But then if the results come back and the results are the same, it gives people a reason to not trust the outcome. They would say the government had it's hand in the investigation and therfore it may have bullied/threatened for something that matched the official story.

Of course throw in the fact that all the evidence is controlled by various government agencies, and you start to see why I think the idea of a new investigation is (to put it politely) pointless.

ETA: Also, why spend tax money on something that only a small but vocal group of people are calling for? If they want a new investigation they should bankroll it themselves. I don't like the idea of my taxes going towards an endless loop of WTC investigations.
 
Back
Top