The usual bunch is not happy with WTC 7 report, suggest revision

[DC]

Ref, you are happy with the report? nothing that you think has to be improved?

 

[ref]

Actually, if you give these passages a fair reading, they are not contradictory. The first mention of debris refers to very small, pulverized debris, that would result from explosives. That kind of debris, the dust cloud, did indeed get blown hundreds of feet away from the building. The second mention of debris is referring to a photograph of the larger pieces left over. These larger pieces were, in fact, confined to a very small space above the building's original footprint. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to give the document a fair reading. After all:

If these larger pieces were in a small space above the original footprint, why has the Fiterman Hall been evacuated since 9/11 and is being demolished floor by floor?

You chose to highlight one of the two issues that were raised about information that the authors contended was omitted from the NIST report. The vast majority of the criticisms raised in the document identified contradictions and outright falsehoods contained within the actual substance of the document. I guess it is easier to bring out your standard issue B.S. responses to issues that have already been covered here before, like foreknowledge. Whatever you do, don't contribute any original thinking here. It would probably take too much effort.

Yes, because you missed the point. The point was, no matter what the topic is, no matter which report, person, media or any other thing they are arguing, they always manage to go back to mentioning 2 things: thermite and foreknowledge. It is their predetermined position. They were already saying the WTC 7 report was going to be wrong because of this evidence of theirs, even before the report came out. But you are right, it's easy to show how they always fall back to their position of thermite and foreknowledge every single time, no matter what. It is them who don't contribute any original thinking. And I told everyone to read the entire letter if they can, but I can understand if they don't. Who takes these people seriously anymore? Apart from themselves that is.

If you want to have a real discussion about this set of public comments, let's start with Chapter 9, and work our way down. Since it's apparent no one here has actually gone and read the entire document (again, why be bothered with original thinking when Ref has posted something everyone has already thought about), I'll copy the portion about Chapter 9. Rebuttals to the points raised are most welcome.

So you think they make any more sense with their flesh around the thermite and foreknowledge bones?

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the “unknown source” photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph’s time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.

They just explained how they estimated the time: using shadow analysis. Why should they explain in extreme detail the methods of the shadow analysis of one single photograph in a report of hundreds of pages? Just because the bunch finds it unlikely that the given results match with their agenda, so they demand new ones?

And since when have Richard Gage and Chris Sarns been experts of computer models and fire simulations? Since Gage doesn't even know the basics of engineering, how can you assume that he now actually has any expertise on this matter? Just because they throw points in the air doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

But this was a draft report and comments are coming in. From this bunch and a lot of actual experts who know what they are talking about. We will see how this develops.

To me, this is just another sad effort to keep their websites, trutherism and support alive. I mean, they had to do this, they had no choice. They have invested so much in this there is no turning back. It's all about thermite and foreknowledge. And it looks exactly like a controlled demolition! Oh wait.. Damn.

 

[ref]

Ref, you are happy with the report? nothing that you think has to be improved?

I think there actually is some room for improvement (nothing that even remotely would make it an inside job), but I am no expert. I'm waiting for the comments from the actual experts and what NIST does then. So I'll wait and see how this develops.

 

[Christopher7]

And since when have Richard Gage and Chris Sarns been experts of computer models and fire simulations? Since Gage doesn't even know the basics of engineering, how can you assume that he now actually has any expertise on this matter?

You don't have to be any kind of expert to see that the NIST fire simulation is grossly inaccurate.
They have extensive fires going at 5:00 p.m. but the NIST Apx. L report clearly says that the fires on floor 12 had gone out by 4:45 p.m.
Look at the photos, look at what NIST 'simulated'. There's a disconnect.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17781

 

[ref]

You don't have to be any kind of expert to see that the NIST fire simulation is grossly inaccurate.
They have extensive fires going at 5:00 p.m. but the NIST Apx. L report clearly says that the fires on floor 12 had gone out by 4:45 p.m.
Look at the photos, look at what NIST 'simulated'. There's a disconnect.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17781

I take it you are Chris Sarns, right?

 

[Golden Bear]

If these larger pieces were in a small space above the original footprint, why has the Fiterman Hall been evacuated since 9/11 and is being demolished floor by floor?

Perhaps I should have described it more precisely as "largely within the original footprint." You know, just like all other controlled demolitions. The buildings in NYC are pretty close together, and it would be unreasonable to expect that a building could be CD'ed without damaging surrounding buildings at all.

It is them who don't contribute any original thinking.

I don't think you actually read the letter if you believe that. Two points out of about 35 cover issues that have been previously discussed here. They are the easiest for you to raise inane arguments against (probably arguments that were originally come up with by others), so those are what you chose to attack. I know what the point was: "Look, they say X, and we've shown time and time again X is not true, so their entire letter is a lie."

They just explained how they estimated the time: using shadow analysis. Why should they explain in extreme detail the methods of the shadow analysis of one single photograph in a report of hundreds of pages? Just because the bunch finds it unlikely that the given results match with their agenda, so they demand new ones?

They need to explain it because in their interim report (Appendix L) in 20004, they stated that the 12th floor was "burned out" by 4:45 pm. In this report, a single photograph has magically appeared on their desk from an "unknown source" that happens to contradict their previous analysis and shows fire at a crucial time when they need it for their theory to have any hope of seeming persuasive. So, yes, I do expect them to at least identify which shadows they were looking at when they determined it was taken at 5:00pm, plus or minus "at least ten minutes." It's a 1000 page report, and they have wasted at least 100 of those on "intentionally left blank" pages, and other irrelevant crap like conversion tables (don't they think scientists reading the report know how to convert units?).

And since when have Richard Gage and Chris Sarns been experts of computer models and fire simulations? Since Gage doesn't even know the basics of engineering, how can you assume that he now actually has any expertise on this matter? Just because they throw points in the air doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

Actually, if you would go look at the analysis, you would see that the computer simulation clearly shows a raging fire across about half of the north face, yet the "unknown source" 5:00pm photograph only shows a small fire in the extreme northwest corner. You don't have to be an expert to see the disconnect. NIST should simply explain why the one photograph they have of the north face at 5:00pm shows one really small fire, yet their computer model shows a raging fire across half of the north face. It's not that complex.

But this was a draft report and comments are coming in. From this bunch and a lot of actual experts who know what they are talking about. We will see how this develops.

Indeed. And because these issues have been clearly identified to NIST, we will see how they address it. If they persist in using the 12th floor computer model that grossly overestimates the fires at 5:00pm, we will then know that they are not interested in the truth. They would instead be exposed as political hacks that are doing whatever they can to examine this problem in a way that supports a politically expedient, predetermined conclusion.

It's all about thermite and foreknowledge. And it looks exactly like a controlled demolition! Oh wait.. Damn.

No, you seem to think it's all about thermite and foreknowledge. Again, those were TWO out of about 30 or so different points raised. As these public comments clearly show, for NIST it's all about unrealistic, raging fires for which there exists little to no visual or anecdotal evidence.

It is humorous (and telling) how you chose to pick out the shadow analysis comment as the one to criticize. This is another very minor point, where the obvious larger point is the one that, even assuming that 5:00pm "unknown source" photograph was taken at 5:00pm, the photograph completely and obviously contradicts the computer models for the 12th floor fires. If it makes you feel better about yourself to attack the less consequential minor points, though, go ahead.

Oh, and guess what, it does look exactly like a controlled demolition! You're right! Even Dan Rather agrees with me! Even Danny Jowenko agrees with me! And now you agree with me! We're making some progress here.

 

[1337m4n]

Perhaps I should have described it more precisely as "largely within the original footprint." You know, just like all other controlled demolitions. The buildings in NYC are pretty close together, and it would be unreasonable to expect that a building could be CD'ed without damaging surrounding buildings at all.

So basically you admit that the "footprint" argument doesn't actually promote CD at all. Cool.

Oh, and guess what, it does look exactly like a controlled demolition! You're right! Even Dan Rather agrees with me! Even Danny Jowenko agrees with me! And now you agree with me! We're making some progress here.

Controlled Demolition of WTC7, a dumb idea invented by dumb people out of ignorance. WTC7 did not look like a controlled demolition. Dan Rather is not an expert on controlled demolition. Danny Jowenko was misled by liars who only showed him a 5-second clip before asking him to make a judgement. WTC7 was not a controlled demolition; a controlled demolition leaves a seismic record that has clear explosions. Protec has seismic records; they do not indicate demolition. When you understand the seismic record you will understand WTC7.

Indeed. And because these issues have been clearly identified to NIST, we will see how they address it. If they persist in using the 12th floor computer model that grossly overestimates the fires at 5:00pm, we will then know that they are not interested in the truth. They would instead be exposed as political hacks that are doing whatever they can to examine this problem in a way that supports a politically expedient, predetermined conclusion.

A Truther lecturing about "predetermined conclusions". LMAO. The Bunch had make up their minds; WTC7 was demolished! You lecture about "predetermined conclusions"; The Bunch had decided that the NIST report was flawed before it was even released! Double standards are fun aren't they.

You nitpick a photograph and a computer illustration to remain willfully ignorant on 9/11. You have a predetermined conclusion about controlled demolition; this is proven by the fact that you remain willfully ignorant about the seismic record, which you would study if you cared about the truth. Protec debunks demolition, end of story.

 

[ref]

Golden Bear does not get it.

It is a complete waste of time arguing "Concrete Core" Sarns and "Box Boy" Gage.

I have stopped arguing these matters months ago. I have reported some news, but that's it. They may come up with new "clever findings", but I won't be tempted back into this BS. I am waiting for the comments from actual experts. Not these salesmen.

And it's all about thermite. Still.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, and guess what, it does look exactly like a controlled demolition! You're right!

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck"
That's the argument in the nut shell eh?

Even Dan Rather agrees with me! Even Danny Jowenko agrees with me! And now you agree with me! We're making some progress here.

A double appeal to authority, the least of which one was only shown limited information upon the event.


eh I could say more but nothing that's not already been said...

 

[Golden Bear]

So basically you admit that the "footprint" argument doesn't actually promote CD at all. Cool.

So basically, you've just proven you don't know how to read. Cool.

Yes, the building fell largely within its own footprint, just like all other CDs. It would be impossible to make such a tall building fall exactly within its own footprint using CD. It may be less precise, but still accurate, to say it fell into its own footprint.

Controlled Demolition of WTC7, a dumb idea invented by dumb people out of ignorance. WTC7 did not look like a controlled demolition. Dan Rather is not an expert on controlled demolition. Danny Jowenko was misled by liars who only showed him a 5-second clip before asking him to make a judgement. WTC7 was not a controlled demolition; a controlled demolition leaves a seismic record that has clear explosions. Protec has seismic records; they do not indicate demolition. When you understand the seismic record you will understand WTC7.

Go look at CDI's description of the Kingdome demolition and you will see that the seismic record can be controlled to some extent, even using high explosives such as RDX. Go read the published literature about nanoenergetic materials like nanothermite, and you will see descriptions of highly energetic materials that are not necessarily explosive. Incidentally, these nanoenergetic materials can be made in gel form that can be coated, sprayed or otherwise applied to surfaces before being ignited. They can be made explosive by including flourinated hydrocarbons in the mixture, but generally they aren't very explosive. Such a high temperature, highly energetic incediary could be used to attack a steel column (Appendix C to FEMA report, anyone?). Your arguments based on Protec data ignore other possibilities that exist based on published scientific literature.

The Bunch had decided that the NIST report was flawed before it was even released! Double standards are fun aren't they.

Perhaps you have a source for this? Saying something IS flawed is not the same to say something COULD BE flawed based on NIST's previous public statements.

You nitpick a photograph and a computer illustration to remain willfully ignorant on 9/11.

You're right. Don't concern yourself with the details. It's ok for NIST to fudge the numbers just a tiny little bit to make their fire theory work in the computer models, right?

What's really funny (that is, if the subject matter weren't so serious), and we haven't even gotten there yet because no one seems to want to address Chapter 9, is that later, when NIST uses these fire simulations to predict structural response, they increase the temperatures predicted by their previous models by even more in subsequent models! Then they only use the worst case scenario from those increased temperatures for the global structural response! It is completely ridiculous. The entire NIST argument in support of its fire collapse theory can be boiled down to "We kept jacking up the temperatures inside the building until our computer showed a collapse initiating event."

Protec debunks demolition, end of story.

Only if you believe science and technology are stagnant. The CDI website, Kingdome description, clearly shows that CD companies know CD can show up in the seismic records, and that steps can be taken to control the seismic record. All it takes is for the people that planned the CD to put their thinking caps on and say, "Hey guys, how can we control the seismic record in this instance. CDI did it for the Kingdome. Can't we figure out a way to control it here?"

 

[A W Smith]

Wrong Chris

Golden Bear does not get it.

It is a complete waste of time arguing "Concrete Core" Sarns and "Box Boy" Gage.

Christopher Sarns is the carpentry remodeling contractor (from Stockton I think) and not of concrete and three inch rebar fame

ChristopherA (Christopher Alfred Brown) of concrete core and rebar
is the excavator / laborer/ equipment operator. Who has a strange collection of HTML files about events in his life here
http://algoxy.com/psych/

 

[Golden Bear]

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck"
That's the argument in the nut shell eh?

Yes. You're right. That's what all of the 30 or so points raised in the public comment document boil down to. Just one whiney little "But, but, but it looks like CD, so it must be!"
/sarcasm

A double appeal to authority, the least of which one was only shown limited information upon the event.

I was not appealing to anyone's authority in the way you suggest. I think we can all agree that Dan Rather and Danny Jowenko are relatively sane individuals with a normal worldview. They just happen to be the first two such sane, normal people I could think of who are on tape saying WTC 7 looked exactly like a CD. So, yes, I have appealed to the authority of two people we can all agree are sane and well-adjusted individuals for the proposition that to sane, normal people the WTC 7 collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Maybe some of the logic experts here can let me know if that still qualifies as an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

eh I could say more but nothing that's not already been said...

Yes, contributing original thinking is difficult. Please don't exert yourself too much here.

 

[A W Smith]

I was not appealing to anyone's authority in the way you suggest. I think we can all agree that Dan Rather and Danny Jowenko are relatively sane individuals with a normal worldview. They just happen to be the first two such sane, normal people I could think of who are on tape saying WTC 7 looked exactly like a CD. So, yes, I have appealed to the authority of two people we can all agree are sane and well-adjusted individuals for the proposition that to sane, normal people the WTC 7 collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Maybe some of the logic experts here can let me know if that still qualifies as an "appeal to authority" fallacy.
.

sorry, regardless if they were of sound mind and/or the first you thought of that appeared on video it is still transparent as an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I was not appealing to anyone's authority in the way you suggest. I think we can all agree that Dan Rather and Danny Jowenko are relatively sane individuals with a normal worldview. They just happen to be the first two such sane, normal people I could think of who are on tape saying WTC 7 looked exactly like a CD.

Jowenko was shown a five second clip of the WTC 7 collapse in it's final stages and given no background as to what happened to it. He didn't even know it was on 911 until the interviewer told him, and he was very confused regarding what he was seeing. Rather understandable given that he wasn't shown the collapse initiation that began with the collapse of pent house. Regardless, from what I see both accounts rely purely on appearances, of which are alone not enough to conclude that the collapse was a controlled demolition.

So, yes, I have appealed to the authority of two people we can all agree are sane and well-adjusted individuals for the proposition that to sane, normal people the WTC 7 collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

Two people who were provided limited information on an event with multiple factors. But as long as it agrees with you, you have no problem skipping any form of critical analysis of their conclusions and take their conclusions as fact. As I stated before, the only thing a controlled demolition has in common with any other collapse is failure of the structural components, which in the context of what you are arguing is circular. Sorry, come up with something better than appearances.

Yes, contributing original thinking is difficult. Please don't exert yourself too much here.

There there... the nanothermites were exactly the cliche topics I'm used to hearing... I return the advice, don't strain yourself either

 

[Christopher7]

Jowenko was shown a five second clip of the WTC 7 collapse in it's final stages and given no background as to what happened to it. He didn't even know it was on 911 until the interviewer told him, and he was very confused regarding what he was seeing. Rather understandable given that he wasn't shown the collapse initiation that began with the collapse of pent house. Regardless, from what I see both accounts rely purely on appearances, of which are alone not enough to conclude that the collapse was a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 was a CD when he saw the 5 second clip, so did I, so have millions of others. It's bloody obvious. Danny was not confused, he was convinced. He is an expert, you are not. You are in denial. WTC 7 fell straight down very fast. To say "it doesn't look like a CD" makes the person saying that look like an idiot.

 

[Golden Bear]

sorry, regardless if they were of sound mind and/or the first you thought of that appeared on video it is still transparent as an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.

Actually, upon further consideration, I don't think it was a logical fallacy. I wasn't offering their testimony to prove the truth of the assertion that WTC 7 was a CD. I was offering it as proof that normal, sane people can, based on the video evidence, say WTC 7 looked like a CD. And thus, disprove the assertion continuously spouted around here that only mentally ill losers can look at the WTC 7 collapse and think it looks like a CD.

Poor, confused Danny Jowenko. Never seen a building collapse in his life. Taken completely aback at the thought that buildings fall down for any reason. I can't believe they would pull such an awful trick as to show video of a collapsing building to a CD expert. He must have just been flabbergasted at what he saw.

Dan Rather had never seen one either. Oh wait, maybe he did. Actually, yes, he said we'd all seen it, probably too much, on television many times before.

Yep, these guys were just so confused and disoriented by what they saw.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 was a CD when he saw the 5 second clip, so did I, so have millions of others.

He classified it as such without being provided any more information than a 5 second video clip. The video shown to him does not show the collapse of the penthouse that precedes the collapse progression, nor does it provide any background information on what happened to the structure before the collapse. It's apparent near the end of that interview he had no idea that was on the same day that the twin towers collapsed,

It's bloody obvious.

Get back on your medication...
It's a disgrace to make a conclusion from nothing more than the appearance with no formal background knowledge of what happened to it.

Danny was not confused, he was convinced.

I suggest you rewatch that video, particularly toward the end when the interviewer tells him when the video was shot. He was certain judging solely by appearance but he was flabbergasted as to how such a demolition could be prepared in a single day. I think his reaction to being told more information than he had before viewing the footage is self-evident.

He is an expert, you are not.

Appeal to authority rejected.

You are in denial.

That's your confirmation bias speaking, not you. I won't consider you credible until you demonstrate critical thinking skills in scrutinizing the claims you parrot. You have not only demonstrated your confirmation bias, but as well your inability to consider more than just face value in the people you quote

WTC 7 fell straight down very fast. To say "it doesn't look like a CD" makes the person saying that look like an idiot.

Ah but here's your problem Chris, you watch a video, say:
"OH *rule10*!!!!! IT LOOKS LIKE A CD!!!! THEREFORE IT IS!!!!!!!!!"

That's it... nada... you stop right there! Confirmation bias at is finest, to consider any collapse mechanism seems to be a massive taboo for you....

 

[Golden Bear]

There there... the nanothermites were exactly the cliche topics I'm used to hearing... I return the advice, don't strain yourself either

Maybe you missed it, but I'm the one that tried to steer this discussion away from the 3% of the document that talks about thermite, and try to focus on the 97% that does not. No one seems to want to address any of the points made in my first post in this thread, save and except the one person that weakly criticized the shadow analysis comment.

I guess you guys have more fun repeating cliches, so we can repeat the response cliches, and go round and round without actually thinking.

I'm ready to defend my first post with some original thought and original argument. Unfortunately, that would take some original thought and argument on the part of the JREFCJers here first. As I'm beginning to notice, that is becoming less and less likely.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And thus, disprove the assertion continuously spouted around here that only mentally ill losers can look at the WTC 7 collapse and think it looks like a CD.

I don't doubt that it superficially looks like one given the video angle the footage was taken at. What I have a problem with, and as I have demonstrated is with those who look at the video and immediately conclude a controlled demolition with no added background information.

What should any building collapse look like when it's critical structural members fail? The location of the failure, the progression of the collapse, among many other factors is determined by where the failure takes place. This is regardless of whether that failure is intentionally induced or not. Seems like circular reasoning to assume that a collapse is a controlled demolition on appearance alone.


As for the rest of your post... I don't care much for sarcasm... Jowenko clearly was not provided any background information concerning what happened to that particular building, and contrary to what you seem to think,,, that actually matters.

When I do a case study on a building precedent and I don't get any background information on it's construction, then obviously my case study isn't going to get far. It's disingenuous to not provide such information beforehand

 

[Christopher7]

He classified it as such without being provided any more information than a 5 second video clip.

That's all that is needed.

The video shown to him does not show the collapse of the penthouse that precedes the collapse progression, nor does it provide any background information on what happened to the structure before the collapse.

That is not needed.

It's apparent near the end of that interview he had no idea that was on the same day that the twin towers collapsed,

He had been told it was imploded days later. He never varied from his professional opinion that it was a CD.

Ah but here's your problem Chris, you watch a video, say:
"OH *rule10*!!!!! IT LOOKS LIKE A CD!!!! THEREFORE IT IS!!!!!!!!!"

No problem.
It looks like a professional building implosion.
FEMA acknowledges that WTC 7 imploded.
Implosions World has many videos of buildings being imploded.
No two implosions look exactly the same but they all fall mostly straight down, very fast, and land mostly in their own footprint.
Fires are random and move from place to place. They cannot cannot cause the uniform, straight down collapse we see in the videos.

WTC 7 looks like a CD.
There is no other explanation.
Therefore it is a CD.