Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[NutCracker]

Doubtful.

And indeed infinte+1 = infinite.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.


Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat,

A building that is built to code generally won't incur damage due to thermal expansion or contraction, because they account for the expected response based on considerations for the climate region the design is in, and the differential extremes between inside and outside air temperature. Last time I checked fire is not a normal thermal load in a building. Also, the NIST attributes WTC7's vulnerability to it's design - specifically long spanning beams which increase the degree to which the thermal response takes effect.

way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.
<snip>
These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected.

suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur

This stuff bothers me. Are you suggesting that thermal expansion requires a specific threshold to take place? It looks to me like you read part of the NIST report with absolutely no understanding of the sciences you're critiquing the NIST for misappropriating. Wikipedia has a nice article on thermal properties, I suggest you read it.

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire.

And you've yet... in all of your curiosity you've never asked the question... why?

 

[BigAl]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.


Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat, way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.

Only for those buildings that have a sub-standard cantilever frame design and on only days in which the water is turned off.

That would be only one building in the world and only on 9/11/2001.

You've been told this before. You are a troll.

 

[Gamolon]

Doubtful.

Ok.

Can you post one link or reference here that you have that shows any physical evidence that leads you to believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

You seem to think that this type of evidence is the only way to actually prove something is true or not. Since you think the a controlled demolition is "more likely" than the official explanation, you MUST have at least one link or reference to physical evidence at your disposal.

 

[RedIbis]

I know red doesn't answer questions, but mine is simply red, assume for just a second that the "official story" of wt7 is true, just for a minute. How would have the NIST's investigation and conclusion differed in that situation that wouldn't have aroused your suspicion? What makes you so biased against them?

Whoops. That's 2 questions. I'm screwed.

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems. They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

 

[Gamolon]

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems. They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

You first.

I asked you why you believe a controlled demolition was more likely even though there is an absence of physical evidence. Unless you have a link or reference to that physical evidence that you are using to come to your conclusion.

So "in the spirit of debating in good faith..."

 

[BigAl]

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems. They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

Because some of us are familiar with modeling. My familiarity says that the NIST hypothesis is plausible but if someone has an alternative to failure due to expansion of a specif beam, I'd listen to it. You certainly don't have one.

That doesn't say that anyone with relevant expertise believes that anything but fire and the lack of water for firefighting isn't the simple, correct explanation for why WTC7 collapsed.

 

[johnny karate]

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

Because computer simulations provide a reliable basis for drawing conclusions in the scientific analysis of complex systems where physical evidence is not available. You may think otherwise, but forensic engineering disagrees with you, No offense, but I'm siding with science over your personal incredulity.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you give more credence to a controlled demolition scenario which also lacks the physical evidence you claim is so crucial to a sound hypothesis.

 

[dtugg]

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems.

As you know, this was impossible because the steel wasn't marked in such a way that they could determine where in the building it came from.

They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

As others pointed out, you're obviously totally clueless on how thermal expansion works.

 

[Gamolon]

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

The same reason you walk into a new building, skyscraper, house, etc. without any physical evidence that the structure is going to hold everything up as it was designed to do. You trust the engineers and designers that they are doing their job and calculating everything correctly. Everyday you trust computer models, stress calculations, blueprint designs, etc. for any sturcture you walk into. Do you ask for physical proof that the structure is going to hold everything up as stated before you enter a building?

 

[bardamu]

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire. Every steel frame high rise bldg that has collapsed, did not collapse from fire, and you're suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur and a single buckling column are not extraordinary claims?

According to NIST, it's not just steel-framed buildings that don't totally collapse from fire:

The collapse of WTC 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.

(NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster, November 19, 2008, page 5)

 

[Gamolon]

These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected. So they are in fact, made up facts, modeled facts, manipulated facts to produce an expected and matching result. Not very scientific.

So you are saying that thermal expansion doesn't happen until a certain expected temperature?

I have news for you. Here is a photo of train tracks and what happened to them on just a "HOT" July day due to thermal expansion.

 

[bill smith]

A building that is built to code generally won't incur damage due to thermal expansion or contraction, because they account for the expected response based on considerations for the climate region the design is in, and the differential extremes between inside and outside air temperature. Last time I checked fire is not a normal thermal load in a building. Also, the NIST attributes WTC7's vulnerability to it's design - specifically long spanning beams which increase the degree to which the thermal response takes effect.




This stuff bothers me. Are you suggesting that thermal expansion requires a specific threshold to take place? It looks to me like you read part of the NIST report with absolutely no understanding of the sciences you're critiquing the NIST for misappropriating. Wikipedia has a nice article on thermal properties, I suggest you read it.


And you've yet... in all of your curiosity you've never asked the question... why?

I think that the general conclusion was that WTC7 was not
a unique style of building. Therefore there are other similar steel-franed buildings out there with long beam spans. Have these buildings ever been identified and closed down for inspection since 9/11 ? Can you name any such building or provide a list of such buildings ? Or is that information held to be confidential ?

 

[lapman]

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

Because they base their conclusions on all available evidence. Do I believe that they are 100% accurate? No. But I believe that it's the best explanation that has been given. Can you come up with a better one that is supported by ALL the available evidence?

 

[alienentity]

Now, getting back to rational speculation, 93 was probably headed for the Capitol Building rather than the White House. I'm sure the White House was ruled out as too small of a target, whereas the Capitol Building is more easily identified.

Agreed.

 

[BigAl]

I think that the general conclusion was that WTC7 was not
a unique style of building. Therefore there are other similar steel-franed buildings out there with long beam spans.

To the extent that there are other buildings, they are only at risk if they develop a huge multi-floor fire and the sprinklers don't work and no firemen show up to fight the fire.

That's effectively what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

 

[bill smith]

To the extent that there are other buildings, they are only at risk if they develop a huge multi-floor fire and the sprinklers don't work and no firemen show up to fight the fire.

That's effectively what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

Suppose you are wrong and they only develop the small and widely seperated fires that we actually observed in WTC7 on 9/11 ? Are they at risk of sudden catastropic collapse ?

 

[BigAl]

Suppose you are wrong and they only develop the small and widely seperated fires that we actually observed in WTC7 on 9/11 ? Are they at risk of sudden catastropic collapse ?

I don't have to suppose anything. Your premise is wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

Suppose you are wrong and they only develop the small and widely seperated fires that we actually observed in WTC7 on 9/11 ? Are they at risk of sudden catastropic collapse ?

When did you observe the fires at WTC7?

 

[RedIbis]

Because computer simulations provide a reliable basis for drawing conclusions in the scientific analysis of complex systems where physical evidence is not available.

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.