• 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.

Missing our Troofs

ImANiceGuy said:
Sorry once again, I must try to be clearer. I'm asking how the damage affected the collapse, not how it affected the building itself.

Just using the word 'exactly' to describe the damage is not exactly the specificity I'm looking for.
Click to expand...
.
Unknown and unknowable in exact terms. Just like having my hand cut off and left untreated *may* have eventually caused my death, but since my throat was slit we likely will never know.

Of what possible use can an *exact* answer to this question be? What does it change about what *did* happen?
.
 
TSR said:
.
Unknown and unknowable in exact terms. Just like having my hand cut off and left untreated *may* have eventually caused my death, but since my throat was slit we likely will never know.

Of what possible use can an *exact* answer to this question be? What does it change about what *did* happen?
.
Click to expand...

NIST should know in exact terms; but now I'm unable to find the WTC7 Q & A FAQ factsheet. The NIST site seems to have a broken link? Help please.....and then I'll get to the point!
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Only once right........?

How exactly did the tower falling onto WTC7 assist in its own collapse(initiation or "manner of"), other than setting the fires?
Click to expand...

Maybe the damage wasn't structural, the debris just blew out glass windows over the south wall.

Flaming debris ignited fires on multiple floors and lots of oxygen coming in via the windows in conjunction with no water for firefighting made any fireproofing rating of 2 hours (my experience) futile.

Assume zero structural damage. There is still a good case for fire and lack of firefighting causing the collapse.

I have a couple relevant WTC7 pics from the FOIA set. I'm about to post them in a new thread. See

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175388
 
Last edited:
ImANiceGuy said:
NIST should know in exact terms; but now I'm unable to find the WTC7 Q & A FAQ factsheet. The NIST site seems to have a broken link? Help please.....and then I'll get to the point!
Click to expand...

NIST found that their model still collapsed when they considered the fire damage alone, without the structural damage caused by debris impact from WTC1, but that some of the details of the modelled collapse were different. Since the collapse was such a complex event, any modelled result will depend very strongly on the fine details of the starting conditions used for modelling, so it's probably not worth trying to draw any other conclusions than that (a) the fires were enough to cause collapse on their own, but (b) in the event, the structural damage was also a factor.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
NIST found that their model still collapsed when they considered the fire damage alone, without the structural damage caused by debris impact from WTC1, but that some of the details of the modelled collapse were different. Since the collapse was such a complex event, any modelled result will depend very strongly on the fine details of the starting conditions used for modelling, so it's probably not worth trying to draw any other conclusions than that (a) the fires were enough to cause collapse on their own, but (b) in the event, the structural damage was also a factor.

Dave
Click to expand...

^^^^^ I love this guy^^^^^

Dave, you have an excellent knack for getting straight to the point and using language that us non engineers can understand. In a three week thread I did over on some other forum, debunking 911, your posts were THE most helpful.

Let's face it, this is a huge and complicated topic, with debunkers constantly being on the defensive. Truther makes claim, debunker has to refute it, and truthers have lots of claims, lots and lots of them, with some of those claims very difficult to get to the bottom of.

Try as I did I found it near impossible to go on the offensive as a debunker and as far as I can tell I did more research than the five twoofers I engaged, combined. As far as I can tell, the entire truther argument is already done for them and once one claim is debunked, it's simple a matter of copy/paste another claim into the reply window.

Which leads me to the point of this thread. Where have all the truthers gone ? From reading here over the past three years, I was under the impression that the truth movement was dead, that nobody really did 911 anymore and the truthers had all grown up, discovered girls, got jobs and moved out of their parents basement.

That was erroneous. Richard Gage and his sidekick, DRG just did a three city tour up here in Canada and although i don't have the attendance figures, nor can I find them ( Hello TelltaleTom ?? ) I "heard" mention of 700 in Montreal and I know he booked a 540 seat lecture hall in Toronto. These numbers are significantly higher than the couple of dozen crazies I would have expected to attend an event regarding a movement that's supposedly "dead"

So IMO, the twoofers are still out there, in droves, they just don't want to come here. Why ?

I can speculate based on the countless threads I've read on the topic on this forum and state that debunkers appear more interested in playing a whack-a-mole, ad hom type game with truthers and IMO truthers just walk away thinking "anal pores" feeling personally attacked rather than having their arguments (and sources) crushed like the game should be played.
 
DGM said:
Try again. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

DGM, I would be wary of defending TSR's reading comprehension. Especially given the fact that he repeated his original response even after I clarified my question.

Dave Rogers and BigAl might be the only ones worth not ignoring. Thank you for your replies in this and other threads. I'm researching based on your info, and will reply in the near immediate future.

Dave or Al; do either of you know of a security setting on NIST's .pdf files which prevents cutting and pasting?
 
Last edited:
ImANiceGuy said:
DGM, I would be wary of defending TSR's reading comprehension. Especially given the fact that he repeated his original response even after I clarified my question.

Dave Rogers and BigAl might be the only ones worth not ignoring. Thank you for your replies in this and other threads. I'm researching based on your info, and will reply in the near immediate future.

Dave or Al; do either of you know of a security setting on NIST's .pdf files which prevents cutting and pasting?
Click to expand...

It's a PITA, isn't it.

You can give a URL for the document and a page number or you can google some text and try to find a source that can be clipped and pasted.
 
Stout said:
^^^^^ I love this guy^^^^^

Dave, you have an excellent knack for getting straight to the point and using language that us non engineers can understand. In a three week thread I did over on some other forum, debunking 911, your posts were THE most helpful.

Let's face it, this is a huge and complicated topic, with debunkers constantly being on the defensive. Truther makes claim, debunker has to refute it, and truthers have lots of claims, lots and lots of them, with some of those claims very difficult to get to the bottom of.

Try as I did I found it near impossible to go on the offensive as a debunker and as far as I can tell I did more research than the five twoofers I engaged, combined. As far as I can tell, the entire truther argument is already done for them and once one claim is debunked, it's simple a matter of copy/paste another claim into the reply window.

Which leads me to the point of this thread. Where have all the truthers gone ? From reading here over the past three years, I was under the impression that the truth movement was dead, that nobody really did 911 anymore and the truthers had all grown up, discovered girls, got jobs and moved out of their parents basement.

That was erroneous. Richard Gage and his sidekick, DRG just did a three city tour up here in Canada and although i don't have the attendance figures, nor can I find them ( Hello TelltaleTom ?? ) I "heard" mention of 700 in Montreal and I know he booked a 540 seat lecture hall in Toronto. These numbers are significantly higher than the couple of dozen crazies I would have expected to attend an event regarding a movement that's supposedly "dead"

So IMO, the twoofers are still out there, in droves, they just don't want to come here. Why ?

I can speculate based on the countless threads I've read on the topic on this forum and state that debunkers appear more interested in playing a whack-a-mole, ad hom type game with truthers and IMO truthers just walk away thinking "anal pores" feeling personally attacked rather than having their arguments (and sources) crushed like the game should be played.
Click to expand...

The point I keep raising is, what do you mean by Truther? Do you mean anyone who raises questions about 911 conspiracies? Or do you mean people who actively do something about it about it?

If you focus on the ideology of 911 conspiracies, instead of just talking with whacko right-wing Americans, you probably have a very different picture of what's going on. Whacko Americans are very receptive to this idea. There would be zillions of Americans who do not necessarily belong to a 911 conspiracy group but who see the world in terms of conspiracy and perceive this 911 conspiracy stuff as somehow reasonable. I suppose what I'm saying is that 911 conspiracies have become part of 'mainstream' conspiracy theory and are now found clustered inside of all kinds of other conspiracies - Holocaust denial, Kennedy assassination, Anthrax, Floride and Aspartame. There is almost no one involved in 911 Truth at any level who is not part of this world of killer conspiracies.

Truthers out there are no longer trying to convince those not already part of this world but are rather trying to hook up with other kinds of conspiracy theorists and convince them to incorporate 911 Truth into their repitoire of conspiracies.

We Are Change holds demonstrations in New York at Ground Zero every year. The number of people they attract gets smaller every year. Last year there was about 100 people and this was drawn from a national group. Some of the demonstrators came from Georgia and Ohio. In fact, it is pretty much the same group of people year after year - they just get tighter and better organized.

If it is true that hundreds showed up for DRG in Montreal, this would not be so strange. This video from 2 years ago shows a large crowd and may just be the same people. Montreal is next to the US/Canada border and I wouldn't be surprised if many are Americans.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
The point I keep raising is, what do you mean by Truther? Do you mean anyone who raises questions about 911 conspiracies? Or do you mean people who actively do something about it about it?

If you focus on the ideology of 911 conspiracies, instead of just talking with whacko right-wing Americans, you probably have a very different picture of what's going on. Whacko Americans are very receptive to this idea. There would be zillions of Americans who do not necessarily belong to a 911 conspiracy group but who see the world in terms of conspiracy and perceive this 911 conspiracy stuff as somehow reasonable. I suppose what I'm saying is that 911 conspiracies have become part of 'mainstream' conspiracy theory and are now found clustered inside of all kinds of other conspiracies - Holocaust denial, Kennedy assassination, Anthrax, Floride and Aspartame. There is almost no one involved in 911 Truth at any level who is not part of this world of killer conspiracies.

Truthers out there are no longer trying to convince those not already part of this world but are rather trying to hook up with other kinds of conspiracy theorists and convince them to incorporate 911 Truth into their repitoire of conspiracies.

We Are Change holds demonstrations in New York at Ground Zero every year. The number of people they attract gets smaller every year. Last year there was about 100 people and this was drawn from a national group. Some of the demonstrators came from Georgia and Ohio. In fact, it is pretty much the same group of people year after year - they just get tighter and better organized.

If it is true that hundreds showed up for DRG in Montreal, this would not be so strange. This video from 2 years ago shows a large crowd and may just be the same people. Montreal is next to the US/Canada border and I wouldn't be surprised if many are Americans.
Click to expand...

scott, by truther I mean anyone either in meatspace or online who's willing to assert that 911 was an inside job and if I ask them why they think that, they're able to respond with something better than "some website/video they saw" or "heard it from someone". People who've researched this topic and come to the conclusion that MiHOP is highly probable.

I'm just now noticing the mainstream CT thing, So far it's been mostly single issue stuff with people I run across. zero point Energy guy heard something on Coast to Coast radio, he was focused on free energy and a bit of medical woo, chelation therapy to prevent heart disease, but mention 911, or chemtrails and we're both having a good chuckle. Anti-vax neighbour does acupuncture and TCM for a living, but doesn't subscribe to 911 woo. It's only online that I run into the same people arguing multi CTs and I've only noticed a few of 'em.


I fully agree it could be the same people attending these events in different locations. sort of like following The Grateful Dead, only less fun. A crowd of hundreds doesn't sound all that impressive really, once you consider that events like this will draw people from outlying areas. Expressed as a percentage of the population within the theoretical target market ? Yea, small.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
DGM, I would be wary of defending TSR's reading comprehension. Especially given the fact that he repeated his original response even after I clarified my question.
Click to expand...
.
LOL -- read again: my answer was modified every bit as much as your question.

Later answered more completely, if not the way you wanted.

Now, you promised us a *point*?
.
 
Stout said:
scott, by truther I mean anyone either in meatspace or online who's willing to assert that 911 was an inside job and if I ask them why they think that, they're able to respond with something better than "some website/video they saw" or "heard it from someone". People who've researched this topic and come to the conclusion that MiHOP is highly probable.

I'm just now noticing the mainstream CT thing, So far it's been mostly single issue stuff with people I run across. zero point Energy guy heard something on Coast to Coast radio, he was focused on free energy and a bit of medical woo, chelation therapy to prevent heart disease, but mention 911, or chemtrails and we're both having a good chuckle. Anti-vax neighbour does acupuncture and TCM for a living, but doesn't subscribe to 911 woo. It's only online that I run into the same people arguing multi CTs and I've only noticed a few of 'em.


I fully agree it could be the same people attending these events in different locations. sort of like following The Grateful Dead, only less fun. A crowd of hundreds doesn't sound all that impressive really, once you consider that events like this will draw people from outlying areas. Expressed as a percentage of the population within the theoretical target market ? Yea, small.
Click to expand...

Like following the Grateful Dead, exactly. But for people with no friends and whose families won't invite them home for Xmas, I'm not sure it's less fun.

There's another group of people who believe that talking about how the government murders people is protected by the principles of free speech. They may not necessarily believe that Bush is a reptilian shape shifter but they believe it's your right to claim he murdered thousands on 911.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Dave or Al; do either of you know of a security setting on NIST's .pdf files which prevents cutting and pasting?
Click to expand...

Nope. I suggest the liveware interactive cut-and-paste interface; it may be time-consuming, but it does wonders for your familiarity with the source material when you've physically had to type out every word. For diagrams, I don't know of any security setting that disables screen dumps.

Dave
 
Incidentally, using that exact liveware-interactive system, here's a relevant excerpt from NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 44.

NIST NCSTAR1A said:
In the analysis without debris impact damage, the exterior columns buckled near mid-height of the building, approximately between floors 17 and 29. In the analysis with debris impact damage, the exterior columns buckled between floors 7 to 14, due to the influence of the exterior damage near the soutwest corner.
Click to expand...

So, according to NIST's modelling, they find that the effect of the structural damage on the collapse was that the multi-storey collapse, leading to the well-known 2.5 seconds of near-freefall that so many truthers believe was suspicious, occurred due to the pre-weakening of the lower structure, not by explosives or thermite, but by the damage inflicted by debris from WTC1. More ironically, though, had there been no impact damage low down in the structure, I see that the buckling was predicted to occur over twelve storeys rather than seven, and it appears to me that this would give an even longer period of near-freefall. Near-freefall appears, therefore, to be in no sense the smoking gun that the truth movement wants it to be.

ImANiceGuy, I realise you may be doubtful of this result as it comes from NIST's modelling rather than direct observation. However, as I'm sure you'll realise when you think about it dispassionately, your question is in fact logically impossible to answer by any other means. We observed only one building collapse, and there were multiple causes of damage involved. In order to determine the effect of one component of damage on that collapse from observation, we would have to have observed at least two such collapses, one with and one without that specific component. The only way we can do so is through simulations, so I suspect the above is the best answer you're ever going to get to the question of exactly how the debris damage affected the collapse.

Dave
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
Montreal is next to the US/Canada border and I wouldn't be surprised if many are Americans.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you'd assume this. By my experience, the propensity for truthiness is much higher among Canadians (or any foreigners, for that matter) than it is among Americans. Which makes perfect sense, given the anti-americanism that runs rampant in the world.

The Montreal event was held at a Quebec university. Idealistic, angry, and misinformed college students aren't exactly hard to come by, so it's not surprising they were able to put some butts in the seats. But I seriously doubt they filled a 700 person auditorium. Whenever these nitiwits draw more than a few dozen together in one place, they document the hell out of it (slow pans of the audience, etc.), then post videos and crow about it all over the net.
 
Stout said:
That was erroneous. Richard Gage and his sidekick, DRG just did a three city tour up here in Canada and although i don't have the attendance figures, nor can I find them ( Hello TelltaleTom ?? ) I "heard" mention of 700 in Montreal and I know he booked a 540 seat lecture hall in Toronto. These numbers are significantly higher than the couple of dozen crazies I would have expected to attend an event regarding a movement that's supposedly "dead"
Click to expand...

Gage had a stop in Saskatoon, a city of approx. 250 000 people.

He drew a crowd of 20 people. 18 were true believers, 1 was a friend of a true believer, and 1 was a sceptic who did a podcast about the four hour (4 HOUR!) event.

ETA: WOW! I did a search for Gage's Canada tour, and I thought this discussion was about his 2012 Canadian tour. I did't realize this was a 2 year old discussion... Anyway, his attendance was well... low.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom