• 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.

NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

RedIbis said:
I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...

Let's see, then. Physical evidence of controlled demolition of the towers? Nope. Physical evidence of faking of airfone calls? Nope. Physical evidence of remote controlled takeover of airliners? Nope. Physical evidence of a missile at the Pentagon? Nope. Physical evidence of a shoot-down at Shanksville? Nope. Physical evidence of a NORAD stand-down? Nope. Physical evidence of CIA control of al-Qaeda? Nope.

Should I go on?

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc. Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...


Please explain what novel means in this context?
 
RedIbis said:
It's like a school of red herring just took over this thread.
Click to expand...
No, it's like we have another truther who refuses to apply the same burden of proof to his own assertions as he demands of the accepted course of events.

Evidence RedIbis, got any? Of course you don't. You, like every other truther ever, don't even have a coherent theory. You're like a creationist who thinks if he can poke enough holes in the ToE he has somehow proved that Godidit.

And, of course, you and your fellow truthers haven't managed to poke even a pin-sized hole in anything to date. But the pure comedy of the assorted ignoramuses in the "truth" movement attempting to refute the collective opinion of renowned experts is so fun to watch!
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
No, it's like we have another truther who refuses to apply the same burden of proof to his own assertions as he demands of the accepted course of events.

Evidence RedIbis, got any? Of course you don't. You, like every other truther ever, don't even have acoherent theory. You're like a creationist who thinks if he can poke enough holes in the ToE he has somehow proved that Godidit.

And, of course, you and your fellow truthers haven't managed to poke even a pin-sized hole in anything to date. But the pure comedy of the assorted ignoramuses in the "truth" movement attempting to refute the collective opinion of renowned experts is so fun to watch!
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?
 
RedIbis said:
What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?
Click to expand...
The physical evidence is that WTC 7 became a pile of smoking rubble.

We know the building was on fire. We know the fires were not fought. We know the sprinkler systems were not operable. We know where the fires were, we know how the building was constructed. Therefore, we can make a determination as to what caused the collapse.

We have no evidence at all of bombs, of thermite, of mini-nukes, of space beams, etc etc etc.

Reasonable people make conclusions based on this evidence. Truthers like you have only speculation, innuendo, and "pull it". :rolleyes:
 
RedIbis said:
What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?
Click to expand...

In other words the evidence you apparently expect from "debunkers" is not the same standard you hold for yourself. What about these?

You claim column 79 and the lack of a physical sample of the said column is sufficient evidence to conclude an "unnatural" collapse. I'm rather curious if you have more than that as a basis for your position, a collective body of evidence that indicates the claim you're implying
 
RedIbis said:
I did? Don't hesitate to use the quote function.
Click to expand...
Sure:
RedIbis said:
What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?
Click to expand...

It's you claiming that column 79 is some kind of magical theory. If you've got more substance than that and a better theory to boot, then by all means share it... You don't need to state your position in such an indirect fashion... what is it I should conclude then RI from your position? Your lack of effort to directly state your conclusion isn't helping
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Let's see, then. Physical evidence of controlled demolition of the towers? Nope. Physical evidence of faking of airfone calls? Nope. Physical evidence of remote controlled takeover of airliners? Nope. Physical evidence of a missile at the Pentagon? Nope. Physical evidence of a shoot-down at Shanksville? Nope. Physical evidence of a NORAD stand-down? Nope. Physical evidence of CIA control of al-Qaeda? Nope.

Should I go on?

Dave
Click to expand...
What the troofer idiots cannot see to get past is that in engineering, "past performance is an exact replica of future performance"
The properties of materials DO NOT change from hour to hour. The performance of structural subsystems are the same for a given configuration and material-always!
We have hundreds--even thousands -- of years of experience in building things that hold up, and in knowing why they hold up, through imperical data-gathering.
Every new structure/system is built upon experience gathered from previous designs, and knowing through testing, data collection, and yes, even failures.
Unlike troothers, economists, politicians, and political parties, engineers and scientists actually do learn from the past.
 
WildCat said:
The physical evidence is that WTC 7 became a pile of smoking rubble.

We know the building was on fire. We know the fires were not fought. We know the sprinkler systems were not operable. We know where the fires were, we know how the building was constructed. Therefore, we can make a determination as to what caused the collapse.

We have no evidence at all of bombs, of thermite, of mini-nukes, of space beams, etc etc etc.

Reasonable people make conclusions based on this evidence. Truthers like you have only speculation, innuendo, and "pull it". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Red, please address WC's post.
 
RedIbis said:
What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?
Click to expand...

The subject of the thread, if you check the OP, is in fact the NIST report, not your perceptions of the lack of evidence supporting it. If your thread drift is acceptable, so is WildCat's.

So let's suppose that you're correct, and in the absence of physical evidence we can't conclude anything about the collapse of WTC7. The collapse therefore supports neither the conventional understanding of 9/11 nor the conspiracy theory. Why, then, are you still bothering to talk about it?

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc. Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
It's like a school of red herring just took over this thread.
Click to expand...

Ok then, back on the topic you brought up

Actually col 79 failed due to loss of lateral bracing. It was the lateral bracing that failed due to fire damage. Loss of col 79 then led to further collapses and, ultimately, global collapse.

So all one would actually expect from col 79 would be that it buckled and failed. Now you might get some information from the girder seat or the girder itself that spanned col 79 to exterior 41(IIRC, I might have that number incorrect and its lunch time and I don't have time to check it).

However, as mentioned before that would require that the specific structural members involved be uniquely stamped and that the stamp be readable after years in use and the damage wrought by fire and physical damage on Sept 11/01.

Unless those specific structural members can be positivly identified one simply cannot gain any information from them, obviously.

Furthermore the debris itself was subjected to fire over several weeks and one could expect these particular structural members to not be on the outside or top of the debris pile. They were, except for the exterior column, well inside the building. Thus no one would be able to discern whether fire damage to that steel occured on, or after, Sept 11/01.

Now, I did ask you to be specific and instead you just through out an offhand remark. If you indeed do think things through then you must be able to put into words just what you could expect to glean from the very specific structural member(s) involved. By that I mean not only what would be looked for on the member but also how it would be positively identified and why you believe that it certainly could be positively identified.

Furthermore the above only deals with looking for physical evidence to back up the NIST computer sim. You also cast a skeptical eye at the computer sim itself yet computer sims are used in a vast array of applications in modern engineering.
If you need to cast doubt on the sim then you again will have to be more specific. Otherwise your recalcitrance to accept the NIST sim will be seen to be driven by your own personal prejudices rather than based upon any technical details.

Finally, you have your own pet theory about how the collapse of WTC 7 came about. If thermite or explosives were used you need to explain where they were placed in order to bring about the collapse that was observed to occur on Sept 11/01. I postulate that if explosives severed the connection between the girder running from col 79 to the exterior column, that global collapse would have occured in the same fashion that the NIST computer sim illustrates. If you would agree with that then you are agreeing that the loss of that girder and subsequent damage brought down WTC 7. This is the only senario in which examination of those specific structural members could bolster the contention of the use of explosives(or thermite).

If you contend that in order to get the same global collapse that explosives must have been used elsewhere in the building then have at it Red, let's see the modelling of that senario. Where were the explosives, how powerful were they, how closely does the model match the collapse seen in the videos?

So far you argue solely from incredulity and personal political prejudice. At least so far as you have shown in any post you have made here on JREF.
 
Last edited:
I just love how Truthers always tend to mess up a good debate by throwing in a stupid comment like "Column 79" or other columns from the Pentagon and so on.

They're so desprite to gain a foothold that it's hilarious that they can't get a grip on reality. And honestly, who cares about those columns besides the Truthers? I know I don't because those are irrelevent. Every column had a purpose, and that purpose was destroyed on 9/11 when the buildings fell.
 
Correction

So all one would actually expect from col 79 would be that it buckled and failed. Now you might get some information from the girder seat or the girder itself that spanned col 79 to exterior 41(IIRC, I might have that number incorrect and its lunch time and I don't have time to check it).
Click to expand...

That should be exterior column 44.
 
RedIbis said:
What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?
Click to expand...


Simulations are empirical evidence and are, as far as I understand it, accepted in a court of law (although not blindly, I'm sure). Truthers have neither physical evidence nor empirical evidence to support any of their rather numerous claims.

Your insistence that only the physical evidence matters and the inherent implication that the lack of such evidence for the NIST's "column 79 conclusion" puts it on equal footing as any fantasy the Truth™ Movement comes up with is rather transparent and not at all logical or intelligent.
 
Since this thread is about NIST's WTC 7 report conclusions, if your post asked about controlled demolition, please don't be surprised that I will completely ignore it.

That should cancel out the majority of posts addressed to me. For the others, I will suspend all skepticism, concede defeat and accept NIST's conclusion.

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Is it in Fresh Kills? Was it melted down in China? What happened to the WTC 7 material? What was the chain of custody for this evidence? Perhaps it still exists. It's not like we're looking for a single human hair to analyze the DNA.

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such extraordinary circumstances, even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom