• 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

lapman said:
Yet you need no evidence whatsoever to believe it was a CD. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course I do. The difference is I'm not contending it was a CD. NIST is contending that a series of extraordinary circumstances brought down WTC 7, yet they've never presented any physical evidence.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being "skeptical" of the methods and conclusions of a forensic engineering report that has been accepted by the global community of forensic engineers is not skepticism, it's denialism.
 
johnny karate said:
Being "skeptical" of the methods and conclusions of a forensic engineering report that has been accepted by the global community of forensic engineers is not skepticism, it's denialism.
Click to expand...

Please link me to the survey you reference that includes statements from this "global community of forensic engineers".

My guess is that nearly all of them have not actually read it and are probably smart enough not to comment on it until they do.
 
RedIbis said:
Please link me to the survey you reference that includes statements from this "global community of forensic engineers".
Click to expand...

I've see you are now subscribing to Homeland Insurgency's ridiculous method of debate. Birds of a feather...

RedIbis said:
My guess is that nearly all of them have not actually read it and are probably smart enough not to comment on it until they do.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure that engineers in general pay very little attention to important events within their own industries. How fortunate for those nefarious evil-doers at NIST that an entire planet of experts have decided to ignore a report on one of the most significant structural failures in recent history.

There is, of course, any easy solution: Contact some forensic engineers, inform them of the existence of the NIST WTC7 Report (you may have to explain to them what NIST is, and possibly what the 9/11 attacks are, as they may not be aware of these things either), have them read it (you may have to help them with some of the more difficult parts), and ask them their opinion of its veracity.

Please let us know the results.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

And yet you accept the Columbia disaster without the crucial piece of physical evidence.

Why is that?
 
Pardalis said:
No, it is a valid analogy an you have failed to say why you think it isn't, and have kept evading it.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the differences between a building and a space shuttle, I'm not going to walk you through it. It's time for me to pick up the new Flannery O'Connor biography, then it's back to work. Don't worry, I'll be back soon.
 
RedIbis said:
If you can't see the differences between a building and a space shuttle,
Click to expand...

Obviously that's not the point of the analogy, the nature of the incident or of the structure at hand has nothing to do with it. It's about whether or not one can come to a comprehensive conclusion about what happened without the critical piece of physical evidence. You obviously can for the Columbia incident, but not WTC7. Again, why is that?
 
RedIbis said:
Pure comedy. You make an absurd, unsupportable assertion and then expect me to provide the results. Debunking at its finest.
Click to expand...

The only absurd, unsupportable assertion I expect you substantiate is this one:
RedIbis said:
My guess is that nearly all of them have not actually read it and are probably smart enough not to comment on it until they do.
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why have you asked for an examination of column 79 for evidence of thermal expansion?

From post 68 (having been asked what he would expect to find on column 79 to refute or support the thermal expansion theoru put forth by NIST)
RI writes:
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.
Click to expand...

How could you have read the report and take away from it that the heat stress on column 79 caused it to fail? Perhaps you actually read some time after you made that post?
 
Last edited:
I suspect that in a coverup, the powers that be would claim a theory that points to a failure that cannot be verified because the actual evidence has been destroyed years ago.

"Thermal expansion on column 79". Yeah, makes sense to me.:p

Have they given lunch money to some students at Purdue to model it yet?
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
I suspect that in a coverup, the powers that be would claim a theory that points to a failure that cannot be verified because the actual evidence has been destroyed years ago.

"Thermal expansion on column 79". Yeah, makes sense to me.:p

Have they given lunch money to some students at Purdue to model it yet?
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving conclusively that all you know about NIST's analysis are distorted second-or-third-hand claims from the paranoid conspiracy theory industry.
 
jaydeehess said:
Then why have you asked for an examination of column 79 for evidence of thermal expansion?

From post 68 (having been asked what he would expect to find on column 79 to refute or support the thermal expansion theoru put forth by NIST)
RI writes:


How could you have read the report and take away from it that the heat stress on column 79 caused it to fail? Perhaps you actually read some time after you made that post?
Click to expand...

Clearly, I was not as precise as I could have been. And since you clearly know the NIST report better than I, answer this question:

What physical evidence did NIST present that would substantiate its central claim that the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel floor beams, causing them to lose their connection to Column 79, causing this column to buckle leading to a chain reaction that results in the complete collapse of the building?
 
RedIbis said:
Clearly, I was not as precise as I could have been. And since you clearly know the NIST report better than I, answer this question:

What physical evidence did NIST present that would substantiate its central claim that the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel floor beams, causing them to lose their connection to Column 79, causing this column to buckle leading to a chain reaction that results in the complete collapse of the building?
Click to expand...

Why is physical evidence necessary to understand what caused WTC7 to collapse?
 
Pardalis said:
Obviously that's not the point of the analogy, the nature of the incident or of the structure at hand has nothing to do with it. It's about whether or not one can come to a comprehensive conclusion about what happened without the critical piece of physical evidence. You obviously can for the Columbia incident, but not WTC7. Again, why is that?
Click to expand...

Did you miss this post RedIbis?

Is it possible or not, to come to a sound conclusion without the critical piece of physical evidence?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
What physical evidence did NIST present that would substantiate its central claim that the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel floor beams, causing them to lose their connection to Column 79, causing this column to buckle leading to a chain reaction that results in the complete collapse of the building?
Click to expand...

NIST provided enough evidence to satisfy the global community of engineers. Reasonable people find this sufficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom