When your MO is to pick apart scenarios and events into their irrelevant and insignificant minutia, why would you bother with how the human mind works.
TAM
- Status
When your MO is to pick apart scenarios and events into their irrelevant and insignificant minutia, why would you bother with how the human mind works.
TAM
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Chan, it would be impolite to do otherwise, doe.
scrummie02
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 16
I'm now hearing the argument "NIST does not have the statutory authority to make
findings of fault or negligence by individuals or organizations." because it's quoted in one of the reports.
NCSTAR1-3
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
No, it would mean it was a different building that collapsed. WTC7 only had 81 columns.
Dave
You may be on to something...
Maybe part of WTC7 was OUT OF PHASE with the rest of the universe...the part that had columns 82-97. It was destroyed by matching the quantum frequency of the out-of-phase portion, then rigging the out-of-phase columns with out-of-phase explosives, which would have detonated silently!
WE'VE UNCOVERED THE SECRET OF HUSH-A-BOOM!
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It can be extraordinary and yet still be simple. An event is called "extraordinary" because it rarely happens, not because it is a complicated process.
High-rise fires rarely result in collapse because there is rarely a situation where there are not enough resources available to fight the fire.
If the firebombings of WWII were to happen in today's world, with all the modern high-rise buildings, you would probably see many more examples of such collapses.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Oh, right...that would have vaporized Earth ten years ahead of schedule.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
This is why most twoofers fail as investigators. They do not understand human motives or how other people are going to see the same situation differently than how it happened or how other people saw it happen.
Rarely will two eye witnesses see exactly the same thing.
Here is a hypothetical. I am nearly deaf. You hear a clanging sound around the corner of the nearest building. I hear nothing. Three people come dashing around the corner. One of them is wieklding a baseball bat over his head as if the strike the first one who came around the corner. You see this and conclude that the man with the bat had actually struck the fleeing man with the bat. But I do not notice it, because I am looking at a knife in the hand of the third man.
The first man falls over suddenly and does not move.
You see a man who has died because of a concusion. I see one who was stabbed to death.
We are both sure that our scenario is the correct one.
The autopsy shows that there was no bleeding intercranially, but that there was a large puncture wound in the victim's back. Being both rational men, we then agree that the victim was stabbed to death.
However, if you are a twoofer, you are probably still saying, "Uh-uh, dude. They beat his freakin' brains out with a baseball bat."
How did they establish that there were no blast events?
1. Did you read the wtc7 report?
2. If the report did not answer this question to your satisfaction, did you send an email to any member of NIST asking them to elaborate or clarify?
TAM
1. Did you read the wtc7 report?
2. If the report did not answer this question to your satisfaction, did you send an email to any member of NIST asking them to elaborate or clarify?
TAM
1. Yes
2. Yes I did. I recieved no reply.
NIST seem to conclude that there were no blasts because people didn't hear them. A strange conclusion, given that people did indeed hear loud noises that could (notice I said COULD) have been blasts.
No if i recall correctly, they did a little more then simply state that because witnesses didn't hear them, they didn't exist.
Be honest now.
TAM
Perhaps you could be honest. The post I have quoted is not an accurate reflection of what I said. I said they CONCLUDED that there were no blasts because they werent heard. I never claimed that they simply stated it.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So.....Have they posted their theory yet?
You are being dishonest in presenting their conclusion. They did not conclude no blast events because noone heard them alone.
They used a program called SHAMRC to simulate the minimal blast that would be required to bring down the tower, and ran it to see if there would be any window breakage from the blast event. It said the should have been windOw breakage along with very loud noise with such blasts, and given there was neither reported, that there was no evidence of blast events.
You are very dishonest....stop it.
TAM
Cooperman,
If you did indeed read the final wtc7 report (i am not convinced you did), please refer to page 26-27
TAM
Please quote the relevant portion.
The relevant portion, to this discussion, is:
NCSTAR 1-A, p xxxii
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
There are no accounts of anyone hearing noises loud enough to cause temporary loss of hearing, nor of anyone hearing loud noises that could have been blasts, in the few seconds preceding the initiation of collapse. There are also, as you've pointed out, sound recordings of the collapse from which any such noises are absent. Loud noises at any other times are of no significance, as these cannot be related to the collapse initiation, and are probably either impacts of falling objects or combustion events of kinds that are commonplace in building fires.
It's worth noting that the lower limit found by NIST for charges capable of severing only column 79 is +130dB, which coincides with the threshold of pain. It's inconceivable that any noise this loud could have passed unnoticed.
Dave
- Status