'What about building 7'?

[aggle-rithm]

Ae911truth have noticed. The clue is in their name. They have engineers.

You could spot the fabrication too if you actually read it. I made it even easer for you be posting the fire simulation picture.

The report listed a number of engineering organizations that assisted with the investigation. I didn't see Ae911truth among them.

Did they offer to help? If not, why not? Don't they care?

If they did offer and NIST rejected it, what was the reason they gave? (I doubt this was the case, since truthers would still be yammering about it to this day as proof that the evil gubmint is keepin' a bruthah down.)

 

[Sabretooth]

Unless you have a new theory, it is always about the NIST theory, or
controlled demolition. How could it be otherwise?
MM

Considering that NIST has proven it was not a CD...and I, too, contend it wasn't a CD...your point is irrelevant.

 

[DGM]

Considering that NIST has proven it was not a CD...and I, too, contend it wasn't a CD...your point is irrelevant.

Hey! Did I miss MM's theory?

 

[Sabretooth]

You did claim that the bulge disproves controlled demolition.

What you made no attempt to do is explain your reasoning.

I'm certainly not going to agree with anyone making an unsubstantiated claim.

But I did explain it to you...more than once. Here it is yet again:

I said the bulge is an identifier that disproves CD. Buildings do not show signs of internal failure prior to ignition.

Do you have anything that disputes this?

My point about the bulge not being a global symptom is quite relevant. Unless
it has a global influence, a bulge has no more significance than a few missing bricks.

Apples and Alligators again. Seeing that WTC7 was not a brick building, your simile fails. A bulge in a steel truss building is far more critical than few bricks (although, in a fire, falling bricks would also require firefighters to pull out and re-evaluate the scene). I would think that this was common sense.

The WTC7 was failing internally because of the uncontrolled fires. Any level of bulging means the fire severely, and perhaps critically, is destroying the integrity of the structure. Firefighters will withdraw at the first signs that the structure is starting to fail...especially in a situation where it is completely unnecessary to risk the lives of (more) firefighters.

And, one more time, the bulging automatically disproves the truther CD theory because the internal structure of a building will not show signs of failure prior to the ignition of the demolition charges. It doesn't matter if it's a "global symptom" or not...that is completely irrelevant to my point. The fact that there is ANY sign of internal failure is wholly significant.

EDIT: I see the Sarge essentially said the same things I just said...

 

[srsjuiceman]

I don't think I'll ever understand people who so casually disregard the facts in their search for truth. I was there that day, and it was really confusing and scary and I can't tell you a great many details about what happened. (Both time and confusion have blurred it all considerably) It sounded like bombs were going off everywhere, screaming, sirens; it was pandemonium. I was already gone when WTC7 fell, so I didn't get to see it happen with my own eyes. I had just assumed it fell because there was no way to battle the flames.

I will admit that when I first saw Loose Change I was intrigued. It raised questions I had never thought about. "Wow! That does kinda look like in fell like it was blown up on purpose! Maybe these people are right to ask questions!" I considered myself a truther; I wanted to get to the bottom of this so I started digging around, starting with video, audio and speaking with people I knew who were on scene.

Fast forward several weeks and my mind was made up. It just fell over. I hadn't read the NIST report, but I didn't have to. All I really had to do was watch some video of the collapse. No detonations. To be certain I asked some of my friends who were fairly close when WTC7 fell, and they too didn't hear anything. I know nothing of engineering but I do know that when you don't fight a fire, it doesn't take much to cause catastrophic failure.

When you step back and think about it all logically, nothing else makes sense. There is simply no way that it could have fell other then natural causes As far as natural being a large amount of combustible materials degrading the structure to the point that it can't support its own weight. As I said, I've never read the NIST report, so maybe not everything they say is kosher, but they have a working model that makes sense.

My 2 cents on WTC7. (And my very first post to boot!)

 

[Sabretooth]

My 2 cents on WTC7. (And my very first post to boot!)

Welcome to the fold. It truly is an interesting place in the JREF. But for future reference, saying this...

It sounded like bombs were going off everywhere, screaming, sirens; it was pandemonium.

...is going to have every truther in the building convinced that explosives brought down the entire WTC complex.

The term "simile" is completely lost on them.

Enjoy your stay

 

[tsig]

I previously raised the point that there was no observed bowing on the north, east, or west faces of WTC7.

This, in spite of the NIST theory and computer simulation which created massive pull forces from inwardly collapsing floors.

I might add, that the NIST proposed bowing of the perimeter walls in the WTC Towers was, based on their theory, caused by pull-in forces from sagging floor trusses.

So yes, I think there is an important distinction in whether you use the term bulge or bow.

There is actually very little non-anecdotal information provided about the "bulge" and there is zero technical confirmation of WTC 7 leaning prior to its collapse.

You have not explained how the existence of a bulge in WTC7 negates the possibility of controlled demolition?

MM

You have not explained how the CD's got there or how they were detonated.

 

[tsig]

Do you have any idea how long it takes to prepare and run a simulation of that
magnitude?

Without proper funding, independent professionals are unlikely to test the NIST simulation results.

MM

You mean none of your 1200 independent professionals will test the NIST results unless they're paid?

 

[Andy_Ross]

All those Engineers should be able to come up with something between them if they have the appropriate experience, training and qualifications.

 

[Miragememories]

"Unless you have a new theory, it is always about the NIST theory, or
controlled demolition. How could it be otherwise?

You did claim that the bulge disproves controlled demolition.

What you made no attempt to do is explain your reasoning.

I'm certainly not going to agree with anyone making an unsubstantiated claim.

My point about the bulge not being a global symptom is quite relevant. Unless
it has a global influence, a bulge has no more significance than a few missing bricks.

If the transit results had proved that WTC 7 had a lean, then you would have
proof that the bulge had a global effect.

But, it still would not prove that the final collapse did not involve controlled demolition."

"But I did explain it to you...more than once. Here it is yet again:
I said the bulge is an identifier that disproves CD. Buildings do not show signs of internal failure prior to ignition.
Do you have anything that disputes this?"

It was never established that the "bulge" was proof of the internal or pending global failure of WTC 7.

Since the bulge was noted long before the actual collapse, and given that no additional corroboration was presented to prove any association with the collapse (such as leaning), I do not see this particular bulge as being an identifier of anything other than a local area of damage.

"My point about the bulge not being a global symptom is quite relevant. Unless it has a global influence, a bulge has no more significance than any other local debris damage.

If the transit results had proved that WTC 7 had a lean, then you would have
proof that the bulge had a global effect.

But, it still would not prove that the final collapse did not involve controlled demolition."

"A bulge in a steel truss building is far more critical ...

The WTC7 was failing internally because of the uncontrolled fires. Any level of bulging means the fire severely, and perhaps critically, is destroying the integrity of the structure.

And, one more time, the bulging automatically disproves the truther CD theory because the internal structure of a building will not show signs of failure .."

You state theory as fact. It was never proven that WTC 7 was failing internally because of the uncontrolled fires. That is strictly theoretical.

The bulge was reported early when overall fire damage was still limited, which makes any association with the bulge quite tenuous.

And again, I repeat. You have no proof that the bulge was indicative of internal building failure.

MM

 

[srsjuiceman]

The term "simile" is completely lost on them.

Really? People have a problem distinguishing a comparative statement: "sounded like bombs." to a declarative statement: "The sound of bombs."?

I shall have to tread lightly it seems.

 

[Sabretooth]

And again, I repeat. You have no proof that the bulge was indicative of internal building failure.

MM

Alright...I see where you're going with this...

In my opinion, and without looking, and I believe it was NIST's opinion as well, that a 3 storey bulge was rather significant and was indicative of internal failures. I also believe, without looking, that this was one of the key factors as to why the firefighters completely gave up on the building.

Was there super-proof of the failures to cause the bulge? I guess not...seeing that WTC7 collapsed at C79...but are seriously going to try and argue that this means the bulge wasn't indicating something seriously wrong with the internal structure? This is a common sense thing, not a "I need more facts" thing.

So I ask you...why wouldn't a bulge signify internal failures? That seems like an odd thing for you to ask for "proof" and hang your hat on it. It was a 3 storey bulge for pete's sake! If not internal failure, then what? A giant boil?

Why am I trained to notice things like this in a structure fire if it's not important? I would not send my guys into a structure that had the characteristics of WTC7. I'm shocked that you don't find this as a big deal.

 

[Sabretooth]

Really? People have a problem distinguishing a comparative statement: "sounded like bombs." to a declarative statement: "The sound of bombs."?

I shall have to tread lightly it seems.

Yes, I'm dead serious. That's exactly what they do. Let me find one of those threads...

EDIT: Here is a fun one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183072&highlight=simile&page=12
Starting at #479 I believe.

 

[alienentity]

Welcome srsjuiceman!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, I'm dead serious. That's exactly what they do. Let me find one of those threads...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

is a good example. It's the most blatant and unashamed example of quote mining, in which any mention of explosions is taken as evidence that explosives were planted in the Twin Towers. It's one of the more striking pieces of intellectual dishonesty put out by the truthers.

Dave

 

[Miragememories]

"You state theory as fact. It was never proven that WTC 7 was failing internally because of the uncontrolled fires. That is strictly theoretical.

The bulge was reported early when overall fire damage was still limited, which makes any association with the bulge quite tenuous.

And again, I repeat. You have no proof that the bulge was indicative of internal building failure."

"Alright...I see where you're going with this..."

I'm not trying to go anywhere with it. You are the one trying assume as much as you can from the little you've got.

"I believe it was NIST's opinion as well, that a 3 storey bulge was rather significant and was indicative of internal failures."

Well unless you can show the NIST as saying that they believed there was a causal relationship between the bulge and any internal failures, then you have no basis for assuming they share your opinion.

"Was there super-proof of the failures to cause the bulge? I guess not...seeing that WTC7 collapsed at C79...but are seriously going to try and argue that this means the bulge wasn't indicating something seriously wrong with the internal structure? This is a common sense thing, not a "I need more facts" thing.

So I ask you...why wouldn't a bulge signify internal failures? That seems like an odd thing for you to ask for "proof" and hang your hat on it. It was a 3 storey bulge for pete's sake! If not internal failure, then what? "

You are asking for speculation on someone else's observation.

We know far too little about the bulge to be certain about what you are eagerly prepared to believe.

We know it was in the southwest corner which had been damaged by WTC1 debris fall.

That in itself could explain a localized bulge created by weakness in the corner in the damaged area above. Nothing to do with the interior at all.

We know they placed a transit on the building.

We know that the NIST reported both the bulge and the transit.

We also know that no specific observations resulting from the use of the transit were ever reported. Most certainly if they had, the NIST would not have omitted them.

We also know that the NIST concluded that collapse initiation began almost as far away from that bulge as you can get. At column 79 on floor 13 in the northeast corner.

We also know that there was only early fire damage when the bulge was reported.

We also know that the NIST determined that debris damage to WTC 7 was not a factor in
its collapse.

We also know that there was no evidence of sufficient internal structural support damage to have caused the southeast corner bulge.

And we have no documented transit evidence to support a belief of a structural lean in WTC 7 prior to its collapse several hours after the bulge was noted.

So yes, I think there is a lot of reason to question a belief that the bulge supposedly signified internal building failure.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't think I'll ever understand people who so casually disregard the facts in their search for truth. I was there that day, and it was really confusing and scary and I can't tell you a great many details about what happened. (Both time and confusion have blurred it all considerably) It sounded like bombs were going off everywhere, screaming, sirens; it was pandemonium. I was already gone when WTC7 fell, so I didn't get to see it happen with my own eyes. I had just assumed it fell because there was no way to battle the flames.

I will admit that when I first saw Loose Change I was intrigued. It raised questions I had never thought about. "Wow! That does kinda look like in fell like it was blown up on purpose! Maybe these people are right to ask questions!" I considered myself a truther; I wanted to get to the bottom of this so I started digging around, starting with video, audio and speaking with people I knew who were on scene.

Fast forward several weeks and my mind was made up. It just fell over. I hadn't read the NIST report, but I didn't have to. All I really had to do was watch some video of the collapse. No detonations. To be certain I asked some of my friends who were fairly close when WTC7 fell, and they too didn't hear anything. I know nothing of engineering but I do know that when you don't fight a fire, it doesn't take much to cause catastrophic failure.

When you step back and think about it all logically, nothing else makes sense. There is simply no way that it could have fell other then natural causes As far as natural being a large amount of combustible materials degrading the structure to the point that it can't support its own weight. As I said, I've never read the NIST report, so maybe not everything they say is kosher, but they have a working model that makes sense.

My 2 cents on WTC7. (And my very first post to boot!)

Welcome to the forum. Not sure how long you have lurked before coming here, but given your comments, you can expect to get a bath of questions asking you "how you could know it wasn't bombs" and "How did you know it just fell over" and etc....

Be prepared for the insanity that is what is left of the TM on this site...be prepared for them to say the same about debunkers.

In the end, you decide who makes more sense, and who is on the right side of history.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

I'm not trying to go anywhere with it. You are the one trying assume as much as you can from the little you've got.



Well unless you can show the NIST as saying that they believed there was a causal relationship between the bulge and any internal failures, then you have no basis for assuming they share your opinion.



You are asking for speculation on someone else's observation.

We know far too little about the bulge to be certain about what you are eagerly prepared to believe.

We know it was in the southwest corner which had been damaged by WTC1 debris fall.

That in itself could explain a localized bulge created by weakness in the corner in the damaged area above. Nothing to do with the interior at all.

We know they placed a transit on the building.

We know that the NIST reported both the bulge and the transit.

We also know that no specific observations resulting from the use of the transit were ever reported. Most certainly if they had, the NIST would not have omitted them.

We also know that the NIST concluded that collapse initiation began almost as far away from that bulge as you can get. At column 79 on floor 13 in the northeast corner.

We also know that there was only early fire damage when the bulge was reported.

We also know that the NIST determined that debris damage to WTC 7 was not a factor in
its collapse.

We also know that there was no evidence of sufficient internal structural support damage to have caused the southeast corner bulge.

And we have no documented transit evidence to support a belief of a structural lean in WTC 7 prior to its collapse several hours after the bulge was noted.

So yes, I think there is a lot of reason to question a belief that the bulge supposedly signified internal building failure.

MM

Seriously, you're turning my statement into something it isn't.

I never said I disagree with NIST.

My exact words were that a bulge disproves a CD. Period. I also explained why.

I did NOT say that this bulge was any causual factor in the actual collapse, as that was at C79, per NIST.

You are intentionally misconstruing my statement into a side argument about validity of NIST. You're being very shady and disingenuous by doing so.

If you want to argue about something I didn't say, then you may as well talk to yourself, because that is a rather crappy and weak way of trying to further an argument.

 

[BigAl]

We also know that no specific observations resulting from the use of the transit were ever reported. Most certainly if they had, the NIST would not have omitted them.

So what?

We also know that the NIST concluded that collapse initiation began almost as far away from that bulge as you can get. At column 79 on floor 13 in the northeast corner.

So what?

We also know that there was only early fire damage when the bulge was reported.

We also know that the NIST determined that debris damage to WTC 7 was not a factor in
its collapse.

Wrong. When a steel-framed building is on fire (unfought), is bulging and creaking FDNY decided to prepare the are for a collapse. , Read 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.

We also know that there was no evidence of sufficient internal structural support damage to have caused the southeast corner bulge.

What could possibly cause the bulge other than internal structural damage?

And we have no documented transit evidence to support a belief of a structural lean in WTC 7 prior to its collapse several hours after the bulge was noted.

So yes, I think there is a lot of reason to question a belief that the bulge supposedly signified internal building failure.
MM

You have no practical or theoretical knowledge of structures.

Why is " lean" a requirement for you? The Deutsche Bank Building wasn't leaning yet it was declared a loss and later disassembled beam by beam. It didn't even catch fire.

FDNY declared WTC7 a write-off for reasons well-described in pages 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1. Everything you write show you are unfamiliar with it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

 

[BigAl]

Really? People have a problem distinguishing a comparative statement: "sounded like bombs." to a declarative statement: "The sound of bombs."?

I shall have to tread lightly it seems.

Always watch for ellipses in quotes.

The "Truth Movement" abuses ellipses. There are more than 100 ellipses in the documents on the Journal of 911 Studies web site and in essentially every instance these are fireman's quotes and the ellipses were put there to hide inconvenient truths, that the firemen knew that what they called explosions were anything but CD.