NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

[Arus808]

the same old rehashed claims from homeland. Homeland come up with something new. What you're stating was debunked in 2006. its now 2008.

 

[Pardalis]

I see RedIbis has shown his face in this thread again.

So could you address this please?:

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:

• WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
• Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

• RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
• RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

You know, the more you ignore it the more obvious your dishonesty gets.

Just saying.

 

[Pardalis]

Talk about semantics. Either there was a firefighting operation (two hours by your account) or there was not.

Which is it?

Please read: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

starting at page 108 (162 in the PDF)

After more than a year at this, I can't believe you haven't read this yet... no, scrap what I just said, I absolutely can imagine it, you're a denier, you don't care to learn about the truth.

 

[Pardalis]

Since RedIbis started posting again, I'm bumping so that he can answer post 322, once and for all.

 

[RedIbis]

Since RedIbis started posting again, I'm bumping so that he can answer post 322, once and for all.

Pathetic. You continue to berate me for not continuing to respond to an enormous false analogy, one that purposefully misrepresents my position. I've deconstructed this in the past, and I have no interest in doing it again, especially to oblige someone with as obnoxious a posting style as yours.

 

[WildCat]

Pathetic. You continue to berate me for not continuing to respond to an enormous false analogy, one that purposefully misrepresents my position. I've deconstructed this in the past, and I have no interest in doing it again, especially to oblige someone with as obnoxious a posting style as yours.

Ah, there's the intellectually dishonest RedIbis we all know!

Accuse people of misrepresenting his opinion he refuses to state, and then lying about having answered it already.

 

[Pardalis]

"Ask questions, demand answers", that's all I'm doing Red.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Pathetic. You continue to berate me for not continuing to respond to an enormous false analogy, one that purposefully misrepresents my position. I've deconstructed this in the past, and I have no interest in doing it again, especially to oblige someone with as obnoxious a posting style as yours.

The hypocrisy which you seem to be missing is in that you seem to have no problem with the Columbia incident being a first time in history event in which foam created the conditions for fatal re-entry into earth's atmosphere, on the basis that there have been concerns in the past in which -- despite not having previously caused such a disaster -- made the Columbia incident plausible.

Yet at the same time, you think that because a steel framed structure has never before failed because of either fire or thermal expansion -- despite all of the concerns set forth for these in the design process -- it must have been due to some externally induce phenomena.

I'm not entirely sure about the others who have asked you this in this thread, but if their thoughts are similar to mine, then they are arguing based on the principals you derived from in order to state your conclusion, not the literal comparison. I am fully aware I am wasting my breath on you trying to make you realize this, what else can I expect, but you applied a rational analysis to the Columbia tragedy, yet you turn that rational thought process right around in the opposite direction when you speak of WTC 7's case. I can't think of any other reason for you to do this other than some bias you hold for whatever reason, because intellectually you seem perfectly capable of making a proper analysis of factors, but intentionally fail to do so in this particular case.

 

[CORed]

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.

As is typically the case, this is exactly backwards. WTC7 is showered with debris, causing massive structural damage and very large fire, followed by collapse of WTC 7. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the default assumption is that the structural damage and fire caused the collapse. This is obvious to any non-paranoid, critically thinking person.

If you think the collapse was caused by, say, explosive demolition to further Larry Silversteins insurance scam, or destroy SEC documents, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to support this.

Despite Twoofer assertions to the contrary, there is nothing unbelievable about the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7. Knock the hell out of a building and set it on fire, and there's a very good chance it will collapse.

 

[Pardalis]

Bump for RedIbis.

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:

• WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
• Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

• RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
• RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

A bump because of his remark in the other thread:

I don't doubt for a second that no plane nonsense is easy to refute. I'll wait until pt II is up so I can see how the scientific method is applied to a lack of core column samples experiencing temps above 250C in the towers or the WTC 7 collapse theory without column 79. In other words, how are hypotheses argued without the necessary physical evidence.

 

[jaydeehess]

I am looking for an analysis of the collapse of WTC 7. I know there was one somewhere that pins down the average accelleration of the north facade and the total time of collapse of the perimeter.
I can't find it again though,,, anyone??

 

[RedIbis]

I was on a roll in this thread.

 

[Pardalis]

You misspelled troll.

 

[jaydeehess]

I was on a roll in this thread.

Unfortunately you have yet to read the NIST report on WTC 7. At least you display no evidence of having done so.

 

[funk de fino]

You misspelled troll.

Too sharp

 

[RedIbis]

Unfortunately you have yet to read the NIST report on WTC 7. At least you display no evidence of having done so.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with NIST's report and its contention without any physical evidence that thermal expansion of the steel beams caused the unsupported Column 79 to buckle leading to the complete collapse of the building.

 

[boloboffin]

Actually, I'm quite familiar with NIST's report and its contention without any physical evidence that thermal expansion of the steel beams caused the unsupported Column 79 to buckle leading to the complete collapse of the building.

You need physical evidence of thermal expansion?

 

[RedIbis]

You need physical evidence of thermal expansion?

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.

 

[boloboffin]

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.

I'm not in the habit of requiring evidence for a phenomenon I experience every day. I don't call that skepticism. I call that know-nothingism.

Do you accept that thermal expansion happens?

 

[lapman]

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.

Yet you need no evidence whatsoever to believe it was a CD.