Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Georgio]

Gage has no legitimate support, and Richard Gage is stuck on the Internet begging for money for his group which produces lies dumbed down for failed engineers.

note, ... , hint... , "typing practice" is sarcasm, used when other posters play the waste of time card, or other off topic nonsense. (understand, poster claims we are wasting time, [sarcasm/rationalize] at least we have typing practice[/sarcasm/etc]

OK beachnut, point taken. I just wonder whether the brute force 'rhetorical question onslaught' style is really necessary a lot of the time.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry, I don't get this. How does AE911's definition of building and fire case studies have anything to do with whether or not professionals have heard of WTC 7?

I stopped myself after JayU responded before me... he worded his response better IMO. My saying from before has to do with my familiarity with AE911's claims and the fact that they hide behind an unsubstantiated claim that the professional field wouldn't be aligned with the "CD" theories because they're largely ignorant that the building went down. I don't deny that WTC 7 was less known, especially among laymen who don't take an active interest in engineering, but WTC 7's collapse was plenty important among engineering and design communities for code and safety reasons. I view AE911's attempt to frame the issue like this as an excuse, and irony given my familiarity with the prima fascia problems I've seen in their work.

I'm not sure how much this adds to JayU's posts, however this is my position on it.

 

[Georgio]

I stopped myself after JayU responded before me... he worded his response better IMO.

That's a relief - I thought I'd upset you for some reason!

 

[caveman1917]

Because the notion that "professionals have never heard of [some conspiracy claim]" is not proven.

It seems your data does:

While we're on the subject, which one of the regular posters here spot-checked Gage's list by calling 15 of the AE911T signatories? As I recall, the ones whose contact information was actually correct and verifiable could not articulate any of AE911T's claims or activities.

Unless you argue that in the set of professionals those who are AE911T signatories are less likely to have heard the argument?

So if the argument is that the 99.5% of the rank-and-file professionals are not Truthers only because they haven't heard the claims

The actual argument made by CE was that they hadn't heard that specific argument so you couldn't rely on "most professionals agree with me" regarding it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What's really stupid about Tony's whole line of questioning here is that NIST pointed out that their FEA model doesn't reproduce the degree of pull-in observed, explained the specific simplifications in the model which they had to make for the model to converge, described how these would result in an underestimate of the pull-in forces, and stated that they had then taken the actual observed pull-in as an input to the next stage of modelling.

Every model is a simplification; that's pretty much a truism. Simplifications have to be made to the point where the model will run at all, and some method has to be used to correct for the effects of those simplifications. In the case of the NIST model, this has all been done correctly and explained in detail. Tony simply chooses to deny the existence or validity of this explanation, as he does with anything that disagrees with his predetermined conclusion; and he thinks that anyone who doesn't share his delusions is obviously wrong, so he thinks he gets a Gotcha! just from the fact that someone disagrees with him. In effect, he's trying to Gotcha reality.

Dave

Dave, I don't recall that NIST actually mentioned specific simplifications they made that would have caused their model not to produce the inward bowing of the exterior due to truss sagging. I only remember a general statement to that effect which seemed to be just a hollow excuse to allow the truss sagging theory to remain.

You seem to be saying they actually said what the specific simplifications were that would have caused the model not to show the inward bowing due to truss sagging. Can you tell us? It would be good to hear a detailed explanation, as it is kind of hard to understand why they would have had that problem if the forces required were really there since FEA models generally produce deformations proportionate to the forces, strength of the materials, and mechanics involved.

 

[Animal]

Dave, I don't recall that NIST actually mentioned specific simplifications they made that would have caused their model not to produce the inward bowing of the exterior due to truss sagging. I only remember a general statement to that effect which seemed to be just a hollow excuse to allow the truss sagging theory to remain.

You seem to be saying they actually said what the specific simplifications were that would have caused the model not to show the inward bowing due to truss sagging. Can you tell us? It would be good to know, as it is kind of hard to understand since FEA models generally produce deformations proportionate to the forces and strength of the materials involved.

<sigh> it does not matter what the NIST modeled......the inward bowing was DOCUMENTED minutes before the collapse from multiple sources.

Your CD fantasy remains shredded.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

<sigh> it does not matter what the NIST modeled......the inward bowing was DOCUMENTED minutes before the collapse from multiple sources.

Your CD fantasy remains shredded.

There is no video of this alleged inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse. That is quite strange. It is quite understandable for the exterior to bow inward at collapse initiation when the core went down, but not minutes before.

This whole minutes before allegation is strange and then coupled with the fact that NIST could not produce it due to truss sagging in their model makes it even stranger, to the point where it sounds like something somebody just made it up to allege a failure theory that worked for them.

 

[Animal]

There is no video of this alleged inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse. That is quite strange.

Only to the willfully ignorant.

 

[NoahFence]

There is no video of this alleged inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse. That is quite strange. It is quite understandable for the exterior to bow inward at collapse initiation when the core went down, but not minutes before.

This whole minutes before allegation is strange and then coupled with the fact that NIST could not produce it due to truss sagging in their model makes it even stranger, to the point where it sounds like something somebody just made it up to allege a failure theory that worked for them.

There's also no video of the titanic sinking, but I'm pretty sure that happened.

 

[DGM]

There's also no video of the titanic sinking, but I'm pretty sure that happened.

It's also funny that Tony clings to a story of a video of Larry Silverstien admitting to demolishing his own building where no video has ever been found.

 

[DGM]

There is no video of this alleged inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse. That is quite strange. It is quite understandable for the exterior to bow inward at collapse initiation when the core went down, but not minutes before.

This whole minutes before allegation is strange and then coupled with the fact that NIST could not produce it due to truss sagging in their model makes it even stranger, to the point where it sounds like something somebody just made it up to allege a failure theory that worked for them.

Why is there zero video evidence for any demolition you suggest? There is also no plausible theory as to how your view of the events could be done.

Seems you got less than nothing using your own standards.

Let me guess, I only say this because I'm "desperate".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There's also no video of the titanic sinking, but I'm pretty sure that happened.

The Titanic did not have helicopters with video cameras flying around it.

There was video being taken of all sides of the Twin Towers, by several helicopters, from shortly after the aircraft impacts. Thus it is quite strange that there is no video of this alleged inward bowing occurring minutes before collapse.

It is also interesting that those who say an NYPD helicopter said something about it also had to say it was not communicated, because nobody heard it on Sept. 11, 2001.

It is also interesting that NIST cannot provide a structural mechanism to cause this alleged inward bowing minutes before collapse. Their FEA model failed to produce it with sagging trusses which had been alleged to be the cause.

It all sounds like a politically motivated made up story after the fact.

 

[NoahFence]

The Titanic did not have helicopters with video cameras flying around it.

There was video being taken of all sides of the Twin Towers, by several helicopters, from shortly after the aircraft impacts. Thus it is quite strange that there is no video of this alleged inward bowing occurring minutes before collapse.

It is also interesting that those who say an NYPD helicopter said something about it also had to say it was not communicated, because nobody heard it on Sept. 11, 2001.

Ivt is also interesting that NIST cannot provide a mechanism to cause it.

It all sounds like it is a made up story after the fact.

Your contention is that there were no videos of the south face. Only the south face.

Keep those goalposts steady.

 

[LSSBB]

The Titanic did not have helicopters with video cameras flying around it.

There was video being taken of all sides of the Twin Towers, by several helicopters, from shortly after the aircraft impacts. Thus it is quite strange that there is no video of this alleged inward bowing occurring minutes before collapse.

It is also interesting that those who say an NYPD helicopter said something about it also had to say it was not communicated, because nobody heard it on Sept. 11, 2001.

It is also interesting that NIST cannot provide a structural mechanism to cause this alleged inward bowing minutes before collapse. Their FEA model failed to produce it with sagging trusses which had been alleged to be the cause.

It all sounds like a politically motivated made up story after the fact.

It's on the same video that has Larry Silverstein admitting WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

 

[Oystein]

Is there video of the south face in the minutes and seconds before collapse, or is there not?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'm mostly satisfied with the technical claims of the mechanics of the collapses. Because the specifics of which column collapsed when were hidden behind the perimeter walls, there is of course room for speculation that the mechanisms may be somewhat different in the details. JSanderO, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and others who have much more technical savvy than me have challenged some of these specifics without denying the overarching government narrative, which they support: planes crash, explode, start fires, weaken structures, global collapse, starting unfought fires in several other buildings, causing extensive damage or bringing them down partially or totally as well. That basic government narrative has also been supported by several university studies, etc.
I greatly doubt that the higher-ups Let It Happen on Purpose, but can only 98% rule that out. I am confident that incompetence and lack of coordination among our defense infrastructure gave the terrorists the openings they needed.

Yeah, that is about it, including the 98%

 

[uvar]

Is there video of the south face in the minutes and seconds before collapse, or is there not?

I assume there is, and of sufficient quality, but it's frankly irrelevant. The absence of such a video wouldn't invalidate all the other evidence.

 

[Oystein]

I assume there is, and of sufficient quality, but it's frankly irrelevant. The absence of such a video wouldn't invalidate all the other evidence.

But the presence of such video (or rather its content) might

Plus, I have a feeling that insinuations are being made regarding the absence of such video evidence, and I want to get the facts straight on this, separate them from insinuations, and know exactly what is insinuated - and why.

So - is there any video of the south side minutes and seconds prior to collapse?

 

[Oystein]

..."Paint manufacturers used extremely flammable paint infused with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles." "All molten metal is aluminium." etc., etc.

...No one has ... found any paint that has uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles ...

Ahem. Kind reminder: Harrit et al have found such paint! You and I have a dedicated debate on Harrit's paint (which you believe to be "thermitic"). As Sunstealer pointed out, "uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles" are a normal characteristic of industrial red paints, and have been produced as such for almost a century in large-scale, efficient industrial processes.

I want to ask you: What, exactly, do you mean by "extremely flammable paint"? You hopefully are aware that most primer paints have flammable, organic binders, right? So why do you say "extremely"? What metric allowed you to determine Harrit's paint was "extremely" flammable rather than "normally" flammable?

Ideally, you'd be proving your assertion in our little thread about Harrit's paint

 

[ozeco41]

But the presence of such video (or rather its content) might

Technically the scope of what could be invalidated is limited.

AFAICS The only issue that could change would be "core led" v "perimeter led" in explaining the initial stage of collapse. Even if there was evidence to reverse the perimeter led core hypothesis (there is) the result is still "Top Block" lost support and fell.

It's conceptually no more important that "col 345 failed before col 456" when we know that all columns failed and the sequence has no effect on the result.

Or to give a slightly more controversial example whether or not "girder walk-off" was ONE of the causal factors leading to the failure of col 79 at WTC 7. The detail of girder walk-off versus another factor has zero consequence at any higher level of system for WTC 7. The detail of "Inward Bowing" versus core has zero effect in the bigger picture for either of the "Twins".

And the T Sz input is equally flawed in either case - present false argument for a detail when even if the detail was true it has no effect of any consequence.