If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[Axxman300]

1. Office fires burned uncontrolled for several hours. How they started is irrelevant.

This is where you fail. How they started is everything, and understanding how the fires began after debris from WTC1 crashed into WTC7, and the unspecified damage done by that debris is the key to the collapse. Everything else is window dressing.

2. Regardless of when you start to measure the collapse initiation, and regardless of when you stop measuring it, freefall was observed for 2.25 seconds. NIST says this happened, and it has been independently verified.

Nobody cares.

3. NIST did not explain freefall.

They didn't have to. Their report was for other structural engineers to use as a guide for future construction projects and safer buildings. Those people understood it, and a few, like on this board, debate a few of the specifics, but not one non-mentally ill engineer has suggested CD.

4. NIST released a computer model but they did not release the data they used for their model.

So?

5. No steel-frame high rise collapsed before or since 9/11.

No steel-frame building has been twacked by a taller building.

You want to focus on 7, focus. All that matters is 7, not other fires in other places at other times.

Now. When you look at these facts, it becomes obvious that the investigation was not complete.

Obvious to whom?

It is NOT a conspiracy theory to look at the evidence, then look at the NIST report, and then come to the conclusion that we need a new investigation.

Nope. Looking at the evidence has closed the books on 9-11.

And again, if you want a new investigation there is no reason you can't fund one yourself. All of the data is available, and you can FOIA anything else you think you'll need.

That is not a conspiracy theory.

Yes, by definition it is a CT.

No one is alleging a conspiracy.

You are.

We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.

There have been almost 20 investigations between the various state and federal agencies. This does not include private investigations conducted on behalf of insurance companies, or individuals looking into the events of 9-11 for their own reasons.

 

[NoahFence]

Here's what you don't understand.

Let's look at WTC7 and nothing else. Forget everything else, just focus on WTC7..

Boom. There's your problem.
You can't just focus on wtc7. Everything is connected. Shanksville, the Pentagon, NYC, everything.

 

[FalseFlag]

So the only thing the New investigation needs to explain is the 2.25 seconds of free fall ?

No.

 

[FalseFlag]

Boom. There's your problem.
You can't just focus on wtc7. Everything is connected. Shanksville, the Pentagon, NYC, everything.

If it's all connected then why is the collapse not mentioned in the 9/11 CR?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If it's all connected then why is the collapse not mentioned in the 9/11 CR?

Not important, no one died in World trade 7, and safety precautions taken worked if the Towers had not been attacked by terrorists building 7 would still be standing.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If it's all connected then why is the collapse not mentioned in the 9/11 CR?

What was the purpose of the 9/11 Commission, FalseFlag?

 

[Mentalpygmy]

2,514 experts disagree with you.

Architects, electrical engineers etc are not experts on how structures react with fire. That is why there is always a structural and fire engineer and their cohorts on any significant design team.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_46]

I am not an expert. I don't need to be an expert to tell who is credible or not.

This looks like a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect. I decided years ago that trying to get through to these people was a waste of time. I do still pop into the 911 sub-forum for a bit of a laugh occasionally.

Dave
(who was working in the Cardington hangar [yep, where the British Steel tests were carried out] on the 11th September 2001)

 

[Wolrab]

We could put the money up front and have someone else hold it.

I'd have no problem with that.

The money may cut into the Hot Pocket budget and mom wouldn't allow it,

 

[Steve001]

Here's what you don't understand.

Let's look at WTC7 and nothing else. Forget everything else, just focus on WTC7.

1. Office fires burned uncontrolled for several hours. How they started is irrelevant. We know, for a fact, that there were fires in WTC7. No, the entire building did not burn, but there were fires.

2. Regardless of when you start to measure the collapse initiation, and regardless of when you stop measuring it, freefall was observed for 2.25 seconds. NIST says this happened, and it has been independently verified.

3. NIST did not explain freefall. They only said the columns buckled. This is not an explanation. An explanation would be one that described why the columns buckled.

4. NIST released a computer model but they did not release the data they used for their model.

5. No steel-frame high rise collapsed before or since 9/11.

I knew you weren't going to answer the question why you choose to qustion the "official" investigation. This is what you are doing. Once again from the article I've highlighted specifically relevant text:

The problem with this is that rationalising explanations take you only so far. If you ask Oliver (or FF in this case, my edit) why he believes 9/11 was an inside job he will, of course, be only too pleased to give you his reasons: it had to be an inside job, he insists, because aircraft impacts couldn’t have brought down the towers (or "No steel-frame high rise collapsed before or since 9/11" my edit). He is wrong about that, but at any rate that’s his story and he is sticking to it. What he has done, in effect, is to explain one of his questionable beliefs by reference to another no less questionable belief. Unfortunately, this doesn’t tell us why he has any of these beliefs. There is a clear sense in which we still don’t know what is really going on with him.

Now. When you look at these facts, it becomes obvious that the investigation was not complete. It is NOT a conspiracy theory to look at the evidence, then look at the NIST report, and then come to the conclusion that we need a new investigation.

That is not a conspiracy theory. No one is alleging a conspiracy. We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.

Reply the italicized. No allegation (omg). The goal of a new investigation is too look for the evidence of governmental conspiracy "truthers' know without doubt is there. In other words what's there to investigate if not looking for evidence of a conspiracy? You a "truther" like all others are looking for a witch to burn. There is no unknown witch.

 

[waypastvne]

No.

Give us a list of questions you want answered.

 

[NoahFence]

If it's all connected then why is the collapse not mentioned in the 9/11 CR?

That wasn't the purpose of the report. Had you read it, you'd know that.

 

[jaydeehess]

2,514 experts disagree with you.

A pool of 2514 that have been unable to produce anything close to a technical paper to dispute the commonly accepted technical history of the destruction wrought on 9/11/01.

Another much smaller group of experts put together a real technical report vis a vis WTC7 for evidence in a court case. Your group has stated that was not possible. Apparently your experts were wrong.

 

[MileHighMadness]

2,514 experts disagree with you.

Over 21,000 experts worked on the NIST reports for WTC 1, 2 & 7; they disagree with you.

 

[Wolrab]

Over 21,000 experts worked on the NIST reports for WTC 1, 2 & 7; they disagree with you.

Yeah but they had relevant degrees.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

What was the purpose of the 9/11 Commission, FalseFlag?

That wasn't the purpose of the report. Had you read it, you'd know that.

Spoilsport! I wanted FF to answer that.

 

[NoahFence]

Spoilsport! I wanted FF to answer that.

He won't though...

 

[PhantomWolf]

2,514 experts disagree with you.

Hang on... you have 2,514 experts, the ability to get any documents via a FIA request and yet you guys haven't actually done the new investigation yourselves? It's been 15 years, surely with 2,514 experts you could have done an investigation by now, why hasn't it happened?

 

[pgimeno]

Here's what you don't understand.
[...]
We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.

Oh, I, for one, do understand it perfectly well. If there was a new investigation and it concluded that there was no CD, you would reject it. That makes you a conspiracy theorist and fits perfectly within the description of the kind of guys described at the link that Steve001 posted.

 

[HSienzant]

...We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.

Who's this "We" and when did you get elected to speak for them?

Hank