• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Why WTC7 should not have collapsed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you miss this part?
The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.
Click to expand...
I do find it odd that a supposed professional organization would even mention the truth movment in a report such as this.

More proof that the professional community thinks that NIST is the biggest f'ing joke ever to happen to engineering analysis.
Click to expand...
I must have missed where they posted anything about NIST being "the biggest f'ing joke ever".
 
I do believe that papasmurf's "smoking gun" just went up in smoke, again.
 
If there is a more illustrative example of how a truther "sources" his claims - ie, ignoring anything he doesn't like and including anything he does - I'd like to see it.
 
papasmurf, this statement of yours
papasmurf said:
More proof that the professional community thinks that NIST is the biggest f'ing joke ever to happen to engineering analysis.
Click to expand...
is at odds with the statements by the CTBUH's chairman, of which this is one:
I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.
Click to expand...
"Responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure ≠ "biggest f'ing joke ever." In fact, the CTBUH makes it clear that building professionals think the "truth" movement is a big f'ing joke.

The difference between my statement and yours? I can support mine with evidence and you can't support yours at all. Does failure really appeal to you people that much? Most people feel bad when they fail all the time.
 
Bobert said:
I do find it odd that a supposed professional organization would even mention the truth movment in a report such as this.
Click to expand...
It's in response to a truther's questions in their forum.
 
TexasJack said:
I guess you missed this part. Any comments?

"The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers."

As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Against this you have the ae911truth movement which has support from approximately 80 licensed structural or civil engineers, who have signed its petition. Now in proportion to the industry the level of support that the 911truth movement is tiny. However I can understand why 80 people did, because the response from government was slow and the one side videos the 911truth movement show are very compelling, if you do not review them critically.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous. However the 911truth movement only provides one side of the argument and any organization that does so is not interested in truth. There are numerous answers to the questions they raise and the overwhelming evidence is that CD played no part in the collapse."

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=697314&page=2
Click to expand...




You miss the point Texasjack, just because the council writes a sentence to disconnect themselves from the truth movement for obvious reasons, doesn't change the fact that everything they wrote in the article supports the truth movement, and not you. So you lose, no matter what way you try to spin it.

Call the truth movement what you want. It's simpleminded sheep like you that need to label groups and push ideas aside because of your silly labeling system. Doesn't change facts or truth, and the truth of the matter is that WTC7 collapse is still unexplained, no matter which way you slice it.

Okay, so we don't understand how it collapsed? You people think that's not an issue for some reason... Or you make up stuff in your head to subdue any questions that you SHOULD be having.


Well here is my problem. How can such a rare event be PREDICTED before it happens, but is unable to be EXPLAINED afterward???? Let me explain simply with an analogy how scientifically it should work. Let's say some scientists working on the LHC have come up with mathematical evidence that this particle called the Higgs-Boson exists. No one has ever seen this particle nor can prove this exists, but they are able to convince the world to spend hundred of billions of dollars to make a machine to look for it. In order for them to predict something of this nature to exist, they would need a solid explanation and evidence that this SHOULD exist. One cannot just have a "hunch" that this particle exists. For the sake of argument, let's say that the LHC proves the existence of the Higgs-boson and the scientists predictions were accurate. Now imagine that they have no explanation for what the Higgs-Boson is or why exists, after they have already PREDICTED it and EXAMINED it. Additionally, probability-wise what would be the chances that the particle that people predicted with mathematics does exist, but not for the reasons that they predicted it in the first place? Answer: nearly zero.

So, if you see where I am going with this...

That's the problem I have and many people have. The collapse was undeniably predicted ahead of time, yet no one is able to provide a mechanism after the fact for why it would have collapsed. At the very least, they should be able to cite their reasons for predicting the collapse in the first place, and be able to provide evidence for why it happened. Additionally, due to the rarity of the event, the reasons for predicting the collapse are extremely likely to be the actual reason for the collapse. This is just simple common sense. They have nothing to support their predictions, and nothing to support their explanation.


Where does this leave us????
 
For the cheap seats:
The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers.
Click to expand...



papasmurf said:
Where does this leave us????
Click to expand...

With you still failing and embarrassing yourself, and all of us laughing at you.
 
Last edited:
papasmurf said:
You miss the point Texasjack, just because the council writes a sentence to disconnect themselves from the truth movement for obvious reasons, doesn't change the fact that everything they wrote in the article supports the truth movement, and not you. So you lose, no matter what way you try to spin it.

Call the truth movement what you want. It's simpleminded sheep like you that need to label groups and push ideas aside because of your silly labeling system. Doesn't change facts or truth, and the truth of the matter is that WTC7 collapse is still unexplained, no matter which way you slice it.

Okay, so we don't understand how it collapsed? You people think that's not an issue for some reason... Or you make up stuff in your head to subdue any questions that you SHOULD be having.


Well here is my problem. How can such a rare event be PREDICTED before it happens, but is unable to be EXPLAINED afterward???? Let me explain simply with an analogy how scientifically it should work. Let's say some scientists working on the LHC have come up with mathematical evidence that this particle called the Higgs-Boson exists. No one has ever seen this particle nor can prove this exists, but they are able to convince the world to spend hundred of billions of dollars to make a machine to look for it. In order for them to predict something of this nature to exist, they would need a solid explanation and evidence that this SHOULD exist. One cannot just have a "hunch" that this particle exists. For the sake of argument, let's say that the LHC proves the existence of the Higgs-boson and the scientists predictions were accurate. Now imagine that they have no explanation for what the Higgs-Boson is or why exists, after they have already PREDICTED it and EXAMINED it. Additionally, probability-wise what would be the chances that the particle that people predicted with mathematics does exist, but not for the reasons that they predicted it in the first place? Answer: nearly zero.

So, if you see where I am going with this...

That's the problem I have and many people have. The collapse was undeniably predicted ahead of time, yet no one is able to provide a mechanism after the fact for why it would have collapsed. At the very least, they should be able to cite their reasons for predicting the collapse in the first place, and be able to provide evidence for why it happened. Additionally, due to the rarity of the event, the reasons for predicting the collapse are extremely likely to be the actual reason for the collapse. This is just simple common sense. They have nothing to support their predictions, and nothing to support their explanation.


Where does this leave us????
Click to expand...

You absolutely hit the nail on the head.

Debunkers don't seem to understand this clear contradiction.

If the collapse was predicted before hand and described as inevitable then explaining why it collapsed should be easy. If the collapse was really predicted then the central thesis of the NIST report could have been written at 4pm on 9/11.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You miss the point Texasjack, just because the council writes a sentence to disconnect themselves from the truth movement for obvious reasons, doesn't change the fact that everything they wrote in the article supports the truth movement, and not you. So you lose, no matter what way you try to spin it.
Click to expand...
What in it "supports" the "truth" cult?

The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers."

As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Against this you have the ae911truth movement which has support from approximately 80 licensed structural or civil engineers, who have signed its petition. Now in proportion to the industry the level of support that the 911truth movement is tiny. However I can understand why 80 people did, because the response from government was slow and the one side videos the 911truth movement show are very compelling, if you do not review them critically.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous. However the 911truth movement only provides one side of the argument and any organization that does so is not interested in truth. There are numerous answers to the questions they raise and the overwhelming evidence is that CD played no part in the collapse.
Click to expand...
I'd say that's pretty much the end of your movement right there. He goes on record as emphatically NOT supporting your movement, and says that your conspiracy garbage is not interested in the truth, that all failures in all buildings were the results directly or indirectly from the plane crashes, and that he personally knows nobody in his extensive professional circles that supports the central conspiracy loon tenant that WTC7 destroyed by something other than a plane.

It seems that you have missed the point of this gentleman's article.

Try reading that passage distancing himself from your cult again and see if anything different comes up.
 
Gravy said:
It's in response to a truther's questions in their forum.
Click to expand...
LOL that it explains it then.
And papa thought it would be a good idea to post regarding a report which CLEARLY destroys the truth movement, LOL
Good stuff!
:D!
 
If the collapse was really predicted then the central thesis of the NIST report could have been written at 4pm on 9/11.
Click to expand...

And that, children, is why nobody takes you seriously.

Any rational, sane human being would know that obviously no serious investigation is done simply by watching YouTube videos for an hour and issuing a 10,000+ page document speculating on what happened while ignoring physical evidence to the contrary. That is not an "investigation."

We know that's how Troofers conduct their "investigations," but that's not how it's done in the real world when the grown-ups are in charge.
 
papasmurf said:
The collapse was undeniably predicted ahead of time, yet no one is able to provide a mechanism after the fact for why it would have collapsed.
Click to expand...

Like when Alex Jones predicted the entire 9/11 afair back in early 2001? So, Alex Jones knew 9/11 was going to happen?


At the very least, they should be able to cite their reasons for predicting the collapse in the first place, and be able to provide evidence for why it happened.
Click to expand...


Maybe...just maybe...the authorities at the scene were being precautious, oh, becase two other buildings had fallen that day.

?
 
Last edited:
mchapman said:
If the collapse was predicted before hand and described as inevitable then explaining why it collapsed should be easy. If the collapse was really predicted then the central thesis of the NIST report could have been written at 4pm on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Oh...really???
 
mchapman said:
You absolutely hit the nail on the head.

Debunkers don't seem to understand this clear contradiction.

If the collapse was predicted before hand and described as inevitable then explaining why it collapsed should be easy. If the collapse was really predicted then the central thesis of the NIST report could have been written at 4pm on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you chimed in because the opinion of one anonymous non-professional wasn't quite enough to convince me. If the star of the smash-hit sitcom Two and a Half Men also agreed with you, well then you'd really have something.
 
Last edited:
Good Lt said:
If there is a more illustrative example of how a truther "sources" his claims - ie, ignoring anything he doesn't like and including anything he does - I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even see that part before he copy / pasted it from his favourite BS site.
 
Mince said:
Like when Alex Jones predicted the entire 9/11 afair back in early 2001? So, Alex Jones knew 9/11 was going to happen?





Maybe...just maybe...the authorities at the scene were being precautious, oh, becase two other buildings had fallen that day.

?
Click to expand...

No. A debunker posted a video here of a firefighter saying "Its definitely coming down, theres no way to stop it". How did he know this? If he knows it was definitely coming down then surely he could give NIST a head start on the mechanism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom