10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7: You look to be going to practically any lengths – including intentionally misinterpreting my posts – to avoid answering my question. I wonder why.


Christopher7 said:
parsimonious: frugal
very frugal or ungenerous
Click to expand...


As I’ve already said, generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I’m using the term “parsimonious” because I’m referring to the principle of parsimony. If you’re unfamiliar with it, then please click the link; this is the third time I’ve provided you with it, after all.

So the question still stands:

Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, the idea that WTC7 collapsed due to fire, debris damage or a combination of those two factors is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?
 
slingblade said:
Absolutely. This really is a highly educated guess, and they aren't done investigating.

I don't live in the world of Absolute Certainty. I know how rare a thing that is. Most things in life don't come anywhere near "absolutely certain." I can accept that there are always going to be things we will never know about this. I can accept extrapolation.

The case is not so shaky that having to extrapolate certain things makes the report untenable. After having read the appendix as carefully as I did, I feel confident I have read the best and most parsimonious explanation of the events in WTC 7's collapse. That it was a natural event which followed from the severe damage suffered by the building. There was no CD, no intrigue, no plot. Nothing but tragedy.

Reading this appendix only reinforced my opinion.
Click to expand...
You believe that the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] is the best and most frugal explanation.

You reject other explanations out of hand, even though WTC 7 imploded.

CD's cause high rise buildings to implode.

CD cannot be ruled out.

If you don't live in a world of absolute certainty, why are you absolutely certain that WTC 7 was not a CD?
 
Architect said:
Okay then, put your money where your mouth is.

I shall start another thread; the basis for the discussion will be that structural steelwork is indeed susceptible to weaking, damage, and in extreme cases failure due to fires. You will make the case that this is incorrect and (if I understand correctly) that "normal" fires cannot cause sufficient damage to lead to significant problems.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...


<cough>
 
Par said:
Christopher7: You look to be going to practically any lengths – including intentionally misinterpreting my posts – to avoid answering my question. I wonder why.
As I’ve already said, generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I’m using the term “parsimonious” because I’m referring to the principle of parsimony. If you’re unfamiliar with it, then please click the link; this is the third time I’ve provided you with it, after all.

So the question still stands:

Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, the idea that WTC7 collapsed due to fire, debris damage or a combination of those two factors is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?
Click to expand...
No
 
Architect said:
Okay then, put your money where your mouth is.

I shall start another thread; the basis for the discussion will be that structural steelwork is indeed susceptible to weaking, damage, and in extreme cases failure due to fires. You will make the case that this is incorrect and (if I understand correctly) that "normal" fires cannot cause sufficient damage to lead to significant problems.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...


ahem?
 
Architect said:
Okay then, put your money where your mouth is.

I shall start another thread; the basis for the discussion will be that structural steelwork is indeed susceptible to weaking, damage, and in extreme cases failure due to fires. You will make the case that this is incorrect and (if I understand correctly) that "normal" fires cannot cause sufficient damage to lead to significant problems.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
Get serious.
Your reading comprehension is zero.
I answered your question "no".

That means, i do not contend that fire could not weaken steel framework, or cause a failure.
 
Well he certainly doesn't understand the structural issues but seems very good at speaking down to folk like Newton who clearly do.
 
Architect said:
Correct. Large timbers (typically in excess of 6" thick") char on the outside, however this acts as protection for the inside which can then continue to act as a load bearing member. Steel, on the other hand, will weaken and fail without fire protection (or if the fire protection is compromised).

If you will, and of course if Chris is really a chippie then he will know this already, an intumescent coating on steel is designed to replicate this barrier layer effect in order to minimise the detrimetal effects of the fire on the steel.

<snip>
Click to expand...

I wish I had a copy of a photograph I saw when I worked at TRADA. It showed a building after a fire, with steel members draped over timber beams still in position after the fire.

And you really shouldn't confuse him with technical words like intumescent.

Dave
 
Par said:
I see. So, what is a more parsimonious explanation?
Click to expand...


This makes me curious as well. We know NIST is not perfect or even complete yet, but what scenario makes MORE sense than the official explanation given the available evidence?
 
Dave_46 said:
I wish I had a copy of a photograph I saw when I worked at TRADA. It showed a building after a fire, with steel members draped over timber beams still in position after the fire.

And you really shouldn't confuse him with technical words like intumescent.

Dave
Click to expand...

Most experience chippies I know are at least aware of intumescent coatings. But then most chippies I know don't use the word "wood" to describe structural timber.........;)
 
LashL said:
No, it really is a proper question for this thread. Why don't you just answer it instead of avoiding it?
Click to expand...
I have stated many times that this thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

You want to avoid the fact that;

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.
 
Face it MM and Chris. The 'official story' is laid out in minute detail for all to see. It's not hidden, it is available for critique by anybody on Earth.

Nobody can know 100% for sure about anything, but what competing theory has been laid out in as much excruciating detail? How many legitimately peer-reviewed papers, or any for that matter, have been submitted that make more sense than the 'official story' to experts in the relevant fields?

Your movement isn't making many fans out of the millions of interested laymen like me.

Why do you think that is?
 
Hey, that's not fair! We're not ignoring you, we're taking the piss!!

But point taken, I'll leave you to your discussion in peace.


But I still don't think you're a real chippie.
 
Christopher7 said:
I have stated many times that this thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

You want to avoid the fact that;

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.
Click to expand...

BS. There is also no evidence for any alternate theory you may come up with. You are using the tried and true technique of trying to blast holes in a theory you disagree with and shoving your own unsupported by evidence theory in its place by default and we aren't buying it.

Nobody changed the subject. The answer to your OP could have just as well been "so what?"
 
Christopher7 said:
I have stated many times that this thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

You want to avoid the fact that;

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.
Click to expand...

No, I am certainly not trying to change the subject, to bury a post, or to attack you. I was simply pointing out that answering a proper question as part of a discussion would have been a prudent thing to do. You do your credibility no favours when you avoid a legitimate question.

Nor does it help to constantly restate the same old nonsense that you have stated a hundred times before. Repetition does not make it true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom