• 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

Pardalis said:
Clinging to a column, that's all they've got left.
Click to expand...


Classic Conspiracy of the Gaps. Before the NIST report, they were clinging to the entire building (some still are). Now, some are forced to cling to a single column.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Classic Conspiracy of the Gaps. Before the NIST report, they were clinging to the entire building (some still are). Now, some are forced to cling to a single column.
Click to expand...
Two words... progressive collapse............................................ :D
 
RedIbis said:
So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.
Click to expand...

Computer modelling is a valid form of scientific investigation.

I defy you to present a reputable scientist that says otherwise.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
The evidence shows that WTC 7 was on fire. The evidence shows that the fires were no fought. The evidence shows the fire sprinklers were not working due to no water pressure. The evidence shows the building collapsed. The evidence shows there was no sound of explosions. The evidence shows no signs of bombs, mini-nukes, thermite, space beams, etc.

You have dismissed all this evidence, why?


Can you tell us what you think the column pieces would show?


What is fascinating is you have ignored all of the evidence - every last bit of it. And after you have ignored all the evidence, you then declare there is no evidence.

This is the same MO you used in the hilarious C-Ring thread, where you refused to anmswer any direct questions and would just keep popping back from time to time declaring that there was no evidence, ignoring all that was put forth. Truly bizarre RedIbis, you are acting like a child who puts his hands over his ears and hums "I can't hear you" when confronted with things he doesn't want to hear.

It's obvious to everyone here you are not a skeptic, you have no theory, you have no evidence to counter the NIST explanation, and you also have no desire to actually educate yourself on the matter. You don't contact anyone who was on the scene, you reject expert opinion out of hand. sadly, this is the hallmark of truthers - ask questions, ignore the answers, repeat.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
True to form, RedIbis ignores this post.
 
GStan said:
Ok, I'll play along. Lets say that the only physical evidence available at all, that is, physical evidence that would support any hypothesis, is the steel samples recovered from WTC7. What do you know about those samples that leads you to believe that they do not support NIST's hypothesis? Looking at them in a vacuum (as you obtusely seem to be doing), I don't think the samples would support any particular hypothesis more than another, even the Truther theories. Do the samples, on their own, support one theory over another?
Click to expand...

Come on Red. You are the one demanding physical evidence. You are the one who stated that the physical evidence consists of the pieces of steel recovered from WTC7. Now what do you know about these pieces of steel that leads you to believe that they do not support NIST's hypothesis? What hypothesis do they support?
 
RedIbis said:
Just post a reference to the physical evidence used to support the NIST hypothesis. Otherwise, try to keep your incessant whining brief.
Click to expand...
You ignore the evidence we do have, and demand evidence we don't have. You can't even explain what would support or refute NIST if you did have your precious Column 79.

This is why you have the reputation you have here Red - you are intellectually dishonest and have no interest at all in any evidence except that which you can't have.
 
WildCat said:
You ignore the evidence we do have, and demand evidence we don't have. You can't even explain what would support or refute NIST if you did have your precious Column 79.

This is why you have the reputation you have here Red - you are intellectually dishonest and have no interest at all in any evidence except that which you can't have.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize I have a reputation here. You might be surprised to learn that I have received many kind messages from members with whom I've disagreed but still are friendly, mature and encouraging.
 
RedIbis said:
Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.
Click to expand...

Given not having physical evidence, the best hypothesis is the best way to go. When no physical evidence is available, what them becomes the most reliable evidence? Clearly your idea is that without physical evidence, you can then just dismiss any research you want and inject pure conjecture that isn't even based on research or testing. And conjecture that isn't even plausible.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Given not having physical evidence, the best hypothesis is the best way to go. When no physical evidence is available, what them becomes the most reliable evidence? Clearly your idea is that without physical evidence, you can then just dismiss any research you want and inject pure conjecture that isn't even based on research or testing. And conjecture that isn't even plausible.
Click to expand...

Give any competent Civil/Structural/Mechanical engineer a beam or even a truss and ask him what will happen to it under any number of conditions of load, restraint, deflection, temperature--or combinations thereof, and he can tell you, with >95% accuracy--if he knows what the material is and the method used to put it together. He/she can do all this without ever actually handling the material or even testing it himself.
This is due to thousands of years of testing to failure various materials and and structures in any conceivable configuration.
Amazingly enough, stuff we build with reacts the same way, every time, to the same conditions. Variations do occur--especially with natural materials (wood, stone, even concrete), which is why the 95%.
There are huge volumes available that do nothing but give material properties!
 
I made a FEA (or actually just a beam model) of WTC7, loaded it with static weights, etc. and found it was a good, solid structure. Nothing wrong with US building standards and FoS >3. Low stresses everywhere! <30% yield.

Then I removed a part of the famous column no. 79 between floors 11/13 ... and asked the PC to re-analyse and nothing really happened. Of course stresses in adjacent primary columns increased 25% and local stresses in beams above increased 50% ... but that was expected. It is what happens when you cut a column. With FoS >3 we are still very safe, though! In the elastic range everywhere.

No collapse will start due to removing part of a column. You can do it in several places, actually! Nothing happens! WTC7 has plenty of redundancy.

For more info, see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm .

Conclusion! The perpetrators of 9/11 must have great influence at NIST because why would NIST otherwise produce such a rubbish WFT7 Final report? Is this Shyam Saunder a terrorist?
 
Heiwa said:
I made a FEA (or actually just a beam model) of WTC7, loaded it with static weights, etc. and found it was a good, solid structure. Nothing wrong with US building standards and FoS >3. Low stresses everywhere! <30% yield.

Then I removed a part of the famous column no. 79 between floors 11/13 ... and asked the PC to re-analyse and nothing really happened. Of course stresses in adjacent primary columns increased 25% and local stresses in beams above increased 50% ... but that was expected. It is what happens when you cut a column. With FoS >3 we are still very safe, though! In the elastic range everywhere.

No collapse will start due to removing part of a column. You can do it in several places, actually! Nothing happens! WTC7 has plenty of redundancy.

For more info, see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm .

Conclusion! The perpetrators of 9/11 must have great influence at NIST because why would NIST otherwise produce such a rubbish WFT7 Final report? Is this Shyam Saunder a terrorist?
Click to expand...

yeah, yeah, yeah, all the personell at NIST are either bought off. threatened or 'in-on-it'.............

Did you just remove column 79 or did you actually model what the NIST report hypthisises as having occured? That is that the floor beams and girders splipped away from their seats and crashed through the flooring below removing several floor's worth of lateral support from column 79?

Since you are familiar with the use of lateral support you also incorporated this loss of several floor's worth of loss into your FEA. No, you did not. Atleast its not even mentioned on your link. BTW that link also does not show this supposed FEA unless by "finite" you mean 'extremely limited'

Now, who do you think we will believe is competant to do a proper job of such an FEA, NIST with a phalanx of engineers with relevent training and experience, or you who cannot seem to understand basic physics sometimes and who apparently has training in naval engineering?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.
Click to expand...
Actually both would rely on the training of the investigator to come to conclusions. IF you did have col 79 what would you see that would bolster or refute the NIST hypothisis? I keep asking this RI and you keep sloughing it off. Why is that?

The FEA that NIST used contained well known and understood concepts in materials engineering. The FEA used data determined through years of analysis of the videos and the materials used in the construction of WTC 7. If you have some specific points of contention regarding the FEA then please let's hear it. The CTBUH has no problem with the global collapse. They have a specific question regarding the fashion by which the long span girder failed. If the CBTUH were to demand physical evidence they would be asking for that girder and the girder seats on col 79 and 44. The CBTUH however is not asking for physical evidence. Instead they simply would like more FEA analysis done. Go figure, the qualified people at the CBTUH want more supposedly unreliable FEA computer sims done.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.
Click to expand...

That method of speculation works quite well in predicting the weather we will have tomorrow, the design of aircraft and a myriad of other applications. But if you wish to continue to live in a Luddite mid-20th century plane of existance we can hardly stop you.
 
RedIbis said:
So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

There are lots of theories that do not have any physical evidence to back them. That planets exist around other stars. We have indirect ways of detecting them (changes in shape of the starlight over time indicating the presents of gravity inducing, orbiting objects), but we have not actually visited the planets. Hell, we only have photos of most of the planets in our own solar system...not parts of them here on earth to confirm their existence. Fossils are but imprints of bones long gone. The list goes on.

You know my point, as I have stated before. Yes, it would be lovely to have the physical evidence to support the theory of WTC7 collapse that NIST has provided, but, IN ITS ABSENCE, we have to go with the best theory that uses other forms of VALID EVIDENCE to support it, such as computer models, video/photo evidence, witness testimony, etc... These for the most part, can be trumped by physical evidence, but that does not invalidate them in its absence. In the absence of such, we must go with what best fits...

TAM:)
 
Did we need to recover the iceberg that hit the Titanic to know what caused it to sink?
 
GStan said:
Ionic and covalent bonding are a total MIHOP.
Click to expand...

That too:D

I was actually thinking about the weak and strong nuclear forces but for that matter (ironic usage intended), gravity and electromagnetism would also apply.

Of course it was revealed long ago that gravity is a myth, the Earth actually sucks, or if you are to believe some posters on woo-sites, the atmosphere is responsible for the effect we call gravity.
 
And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind. There was physical evidence, now there is not.

This must be what you guys call debunking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom