• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Proving a theory false does not require another theory. You know this. You are simply trying the age old disinfo tactic known as "Demand complete solutions".

Tough luck. I do not need an entirely new theory in order to show that the NIST theory is false.

Heres a stupid example to illustrate what I mean:

The NIST theory states that column 79 failed. Suppose column 79 was found at a scrapyard and examined and it revealed that column 79 showed no signs of failure. That would immediately disprove NISTs theory, but without a new theory.

Come on, are we reinventing the wheel here? You do not need a new theory to prove an existing one wrong.

Congratulations! You have discovered what's known as the "null hypothesis". At the same time, you have demonstrated the strength of NIST's theory: It is falsifiable. Without falsifiability, a theory might as well be make believe.

Belief in fairies, ghosts, and Bigfoot are examples of unfalsifiable notions. It's impossible to prove that they don't exist, because the probability that they might just be hiding somewhere is greater than zero. Not much greater, but greater.

That doesn't mean they DO exist. It just means that any rational person can safely assume that they don't.

Your controlled demolition theory is the same way. There is no way anyone could prove to your satisfaction that your theory is wrong. Just because no evidence was found and there were no telltale signs of explosives doesn't mean they weren't used. In your mind, they could have just had special properties, or people weren't paying attention, or evidence was destroyed or witnesses were suppressed.

That's why your theory is worthless. Like fairies and ghosts, it might as well be make-believe for all the impact it has on the world.
 
Well, cooperman has proposed a new theory, so lets see what it is, and what he has to do to prove it...

Theory: the NIST theory for WTC7 is incorrect because in order for the collapse to occur, according to NIST, there had to be buckling of column 79. This buckling required the failure, due to application of direct flame/fire, of the girder between column 79 and 44 on flooor 12. This did not occur.

-------

So how does he prove his theory correct. Well he has to prove, with reasonable amounts of evidence, that (a) the girder between column 79 and 44 on floor 12 was critical to the collapse of the inner 8-9 floors (between floors 13 and 5), and hence the buckling of column 79, (b) that direct flame/fire application locally at this girder was critical to it heating up to the point of failure secondary to expansion, and (c) that the was an absence of said local fire/flame at the area of column 79 to 44 on floor 12 at the time when expansion of said column was said to have occured.

Go.....

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Because the NIST fire simulations are patently wrong and contradict their own statements and photographic evidence. How exactly does the girder between columns 79 and 44 fail when the fire has burned out there over an hour before? If you were a skeptic you would be asking these questions.

The only places preaching that NIST fire sims are wrong is from AE911T and other truther sites.

Those people are stupid. They are basing their "evidence" on assumptions and cherry-picked photos and video. There is no science in their argument, which is why no one in the real world listens to them.

Take a cue.
 
Heres a hint; That girder wasn't the thing that was expanding.

It really doesn't matter what was expanding. None of the load-bearing structural components in that building were designed to move. If something starts moving, then everything connected to it starts moving. Then you have real trouble.
 
What medium or item can cut structural steel, in multiple places, with precision, that not only is very quiet, but also does not produce a blinding flash of light, is fire-proof, and can be applied without being detected either before, during, or after it's use?

As long as this question goes even partially unanswered, the CD theory is dead.

Do I need to put this in my signature?
 
A bunch of off-topic and bickering split to AAH. Discuss the topic and not each other.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
What was so important about WTC7 that it had to be destroyed that day?

When weill a truther tell me?
 
What was so important about WTC7 that it had to be destroyed that day?

When weill a truther tell me?

I told you, for them, earlier. I swear, the only reason it is important, is as i told you....insurance winnings for dat bad joo, and sekrit documents for several govt organizations, that for some reason could not be destroyed with a sledge hammer and paper shredder.

Honest.

TAM:)
 
That is so irrational. I still think there has to be more, plus it's good to hear from the horses mouth.
 
I told you, for them, earlier. I swear, the only reason it is important, is as i told you....insurance winnings for dat bad joo, and sekrit documents for several govt organizations, that for some reason could not be destroyed with a sledge hammer and paper shredder.

Honest.

TAM:)

There was also twenty trillion dollars (IIRC) of gold in the basement.

GOLD!! GOOOOOLD!!
 
What was so important about WTC7 that it had to be destroyed that day?

When weill a truther tell me?

If memory serves, one of the truthers believes that it was because of the financial crisis in 2009. Yes, you read that correctly.
 
If memory serves, one of the truthers believes that it was because of the financial crisis in 2009. Yes, you read that correctly.

That kind of reminds me when those retards brought up about a hole being at Shanksville in 1994 & claiming that it had "wing marks" already in it. Talk about being stupid as hell! :boggled:

I know about that area, & it was an abandoned strip mine. Those idiots don't know what a strip mine is. And no Truthers, it's not a bunch of strippers working in a mine. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, after the fire moved on. Do you really think that steel increases in temp, because that's what some of your cohorts are suggesting.

Why wouldn't it?

If the steel is at say, 200C after the fires subside, but the air temp of the floor is at 400C, it should continue to heat up, regardless of whether or not there are flames present.
 
Last edited:
They don't, and I'm not sure why you would think they would, since they assert (without physical evidence, of course) that failures "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 C (750 F), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."


- they don't specify how much below 400C these failures occurred
- they don't specify why these failures occurred at such low temps

The column failed because it lost lateral support.
 
Yes. Heat soak and conduction continued to operate and cause weakening and expansion in the absence of firefighters and water.

You said that the steel temp would rise even after the fire has moved on.
If you think conduction would raise the temperature of the steel that was heated after the fire source has been exhuasted, you are hallucinating or you live in a parallel universe, in which basic principles of science are reversed.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked that none of your friends here corrected you, but if the situation were reversed, this would be stundelicious.
 
This appears to be applicable to this thread;

re:http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3815409/1/#new

Oystein said:
"You are misrepresenting the argument at JREF."
There are many confused arguments presented by the JREF Official Conspiracy Theory supporters. I referenced what seemed to be the most popular.

Oystein said:
"You do admit that both penthouses fell down into the core of WTC7, right? So something must have been destroyed inside. Correct or not?"
Yes, the east penthouse was observed to collapse prior to global collapse initiation. Clearly this indicated a loss of vertical support from immediately below. The west penthouse began its collapse in conjunction with the global collapse.

Oystein said:
"Available video do not show "all" the noth face - only the upper half or less.
NIST does not say, mean or imply "just the actual face of WTC7". You on the other hand say and apparently mean "the building" when NIST "just" mentions the north face. The reason NIST "just" mentions the north face is that that is what can actually be seen and measured."
I never accepted that that was the NIST's belief.

After many years of investigation, the NIST released a final draft of their WTC 7 collapse report. In the this draft, they amazingly still did not admit to any evidence of free fall. They were forced to change this conclusion after receiving much publicized feedback pointing out this dramatic error.

In their final revised report, they deliberately choose wording designed to create the illusion that only the north face facade was involved in free fall.

You and your ilk at JREF jump all over anyone whenever the WTC 7 "north face" is characterized as embodying anything more..

Oystein said:
"It is very important to understand that the core of the building - everything behind the face - was not anymore structurally sound and intact, as evidenced by the prior collapse of the penthouses.
If the core on the west side started falling before the face - and it did - it would have pulled the floors down. Thus, the floors also started descent before the face. When the face started falling, the core and the better part of the floors was already underway, and these quite likely never experienced freefall acceleration."
Well it is important to your belief in the NIST theory.

You can state a theory as fact over and over until the cows come home but it still remains only a theory.

The collapse of the penthouses reveal some sort of failure directly below them. It is a bold assumption to believe the rest of what you hypothesize.

wtc7preglob1.jpg



In the approximately 7 seconds from the start of the east penthouse collapse to the observed global collapse of WTC7, you suggest that the internal structure is collapsing floor-by-floor but at a speed less than free fall.

wtc7column79hm2.png


Yet miraculously, in spite of all this internal structural devastation, only a few windows appear to have broken on the upper northeast face.

Here we have the NIST proposing that collapse initiation started with column 79, at its floor 13 location, after a heat induced loss of all lateral support over 5 floors.

This buckling failure supposedly continued from floor 13 upwards to a point below the east penthouse and supposedly accounted for the failure there.

In the 7 seconds before global collapse was observable, floors structurally anchored to the core and perimeter columns supposedly began falling inwards placing great torque on their perimeter column connections, yet the only physical effect observed on the north face of WTC 7 was a few broken windows.

I have to say that is absolutely too incredible to be believable!

MM
 
You said that the steel temp would rise even after the fire has moved on.
If you think conduction would raise the temperature of the steel that was heated after the fire source has been exhuasted, you are hallucinating or you live in a parallel universe, in which basic principles of science are reversed.

Think of fire as a cancer that has metastasized. You got the tumor off your face, but now there's one on your butt. Are you safer now?
 
ahhh...so now the truthers are going to say that NIST purposely said the Northern Face, not because it was factual, but to hide the fact that it was the entire structure that fell in free fall.

So now you are (no room for argument here) accusing NIST of LYING and FABRICATING conclusions to hide the purposeful controlled demolition of WTC7.

Glad to finally see where you stand MM. Takes some balls to accuse a collection of Americans you do not know of covering up mass murder.

TAM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom