'What about building 7'?

[Andy_Ross]

And how do you get off calling WTC 7 insignificant? The location for Giuliani's OEM and the regional offices for the CIA, IRS, and FBI has no strategic value?

So if you think it was deliberately destroyed who did it and why? Giuliani? CIA? IRS? FBI?

If there was something in the office they wanted to hide why not just move it? why blow up an entire building to get rid of e few documents?

What if no debris fhad damaged the building and started a fire? How would they have destroyed it?

 

[triforcharity]

Most people do not know that wtc7 collapsed that day. Even the ones that do, don't understand the significance.

I was watching some TV footage on youtube the other day and one reporter said, just after building 7 collapsed, that "a small building on the site has also now collapsed". I don't know in which universe a 47 storey building is considered small.

When compared to the ESB, Twin Towers, and many other NYC skyscrapers, yeah, it's about normal size.

Never been to NYC, especially Manhattan have you?

 

[triforcharity]

Because the bugle was measured in inches or a couple feet and invisible unless viewed through a surveyor's instrument.

One correction. It was noticable from the side. Ie: Profile view. But, to the untrained eye, nobody would notice it. Many FF's did notice it, but, it suprised nobody considering the condition of the building.

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah, but there's no proof that the fire caused the collapse, only speculation.

Before collase there was no fire.
After collapse, there was fire.

Do you need to contact Sherlock Holmes to figure this brain buster out?

Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1. A lot of the public work in tall buildings.

2. I never suggested that truthers do raise awareness of building 7 for that reason. Why do you put meanings on things that I say that I didn't mean? I said that most of the public do not know about 7 or it's signoficance. That is all I said, nothing to do with conspiracy theories, nothing to do with CD, nothing to do with thermite or silverstein or anything else. I made a factual statement in regard to someone elses statement about the wider publicc knowledge about wtc7. Agreed?

Of all the arguments presented in this forum against the possibility of a conspiracy around 9/11, I find the abandonment of any debating position at all by some truthers, in an effort to avoid humiliation, one of the most entertaining.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

Yeah, but there's no proof that the fire caused the collapse, only informed speculation.

ftfy

By your standard, there only uninformed speculation as to why the two space shuttles failed and why countless aircraft have crashed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

(Bee dunkers tend to ignore the fact that for many years, no one could actually explain the collapse of 7, FEMA concluding its own explanation having only a "low probability" of occurring. NIST had to commission the work out, and still now the explanation relies entirely on "the fires!!" without the added drama of planes. It's a story for idiots or for people who don't care.)

Great, let's talk about probabilities.

Based on past experience, when a building collapses, what is usually the cause? I'm going to make up a figure here and say that 90% of the time, the cause is controlled demolition, and 10% of the time it is spontaneous structural failure and/or uncontrolled mayhem (such as a terror attack, plane crash, or fire). Those numbers may be way off, but I know for a fact that buildings collapse due to the latter causes, so we'll say that number is between 0 and 10 percent.

Therefore, when a building collapses there is a 90-99% probability that controlled demolition was the cause.

(This would be buildings of mid-range size, since the only three examples of buildings 47 stories and taller collapsing are in dispute here.)

Now we take those probabilities and go to the next step: If a building 5-30 stories high collapses and there is no ear-splitting noise that ruptures all eardrums within a half-mile of the area, what are the probabilities now?

Demolition charges are now ruled out. That leaves buildings that are demolished by some other means, such as cable pulling or some mechanical means of removing supports. The taller a building is, the less likely such a method would be used.

Now the probabilities are much better for uncontrolled mayhem rather than controlled demolition. I could calculate the exact probabilites with more data, but this is unnecessary. We have more facts to consider.

If a building collapses without an ear-splitting noise, and no demolition crew has been seen preparing the building and performing the actual demolition, what are the odds now? I could be wrong, but I'd wager there is not a single incidence of this. We'll be generous and give this a .1% probability.

But now, we take all this and ask: What is a probability that, when a building collapses with no ear-splitting noise, no demolition crew, and the building is ON FIRE, that it is controlled demolition rather than uncontrolled mayhem? Now, the probability that this is, in fact, the result of uncontrolled mayhem comes EXTREMELY close to 100%, especially since fire is a known collapse mechanism.

Now comes the kicker: What if you take all this, and ask the question: "Was there uncontrolled mayhem in the vicinity of the collapse?"

That, my friends, is what we call a no-brainer.

 

[Sabretooth]

Look at the simulation. It shows fire around column 79 at 5pm. NIST already said in Appendix L that the fires were out ther by 4:45pm and the photograph shows no fire at 4pm.

I have not misunderstood anything. Those are the facts. I have already posted the fire simulation frame at 5pm. The photograph from 4pm and the qoute from NIST Appendix L.

Instead of talking about likelihoods, perhaps you could actually address the evidence.
Huh? Maybe I'm not reading what your reading...but this is text from Appendix L:

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

I see where they say fire on floor 12 was not visible by 4:45pm, but what part of "fires on 7, 8, 9, and 11" lead you to believe that the heat was not a factor on 12?

It is also rather disingenuous of you to ignore my findings in post# 636.

cooperman - are you planning on answering this? You've made quite the effort to ignore it and keep changing subjects. My post #796 got completely ignored as well.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

My question to Truthers- who do you think was behind 9/11? What is your evidence?

I suspect there will be 10 diferent answers, but odds are 'the Jews' will be Truthers top pick.
If Bush and Cheney were involved- why did they step aside and let Obama become president?
So Truthers- who do you think gave the order for 9/11, and what is your evidence that they were involved?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My question to the Truthers......

Who is your daddy, and what does he do?

 

[jaydeehess]

If a building collapses without an ear-splitting noise, and no demolition crew has been seen preparing the building and performing the actual demolition, what are the odds now? I could be wrong, but I'd wager there is not a single incidence of this. We'll be generous and give this a .1% probability.

But now, we take all this and ask: What is a probability that, when a building collapses with no ear-splitting noise, no demolition crew, and the building is ON FIRE, that it is controlled demolition rather than uncontrolled mayhem? Now, the probability that this is, in fact, the result of uncontrolled mayhem comes EXTREMELY close to 100%, especially since fire is a known collapse mechanism.

Now comes the kicker: What if you take all this, and ask the question: "Was there uncontrolled mayhem in the vicinity of the collapse?"

That, my friends, is what we call a no-brainer.

Its a long way to explain that by Occam the most probably answer is that fire initiated, after which the design of this particular structure allowed the propagation of , collapse.

However, I have seen fundementalists argue that by Occam's Razor the best answer to how creation occured is by an act of an all powerful God. The 911 conspiracy believers are no different as they argue that deliberate demolition is the simplest answer.

The two are confusing simplistic with simple.

 

[TSR]

Strawman. Proof of controlled demolition is the near-simultaneous failure of all 58 perimeter columns.

.
Except for the teeny tiny fact that no one claims such a near-simultaneous failure but you......
.

 

[beachnut]

Where is Deets and evidence for his claims?

 

[1337m4n]

Yeah, but there's no proof that the fire caused the collapse, only speculation.

Ever heard of "proof by process of elimination"?

 

[WildCat]

Ever heard of "proof by process of elimination"?

The problem with truthers is that no theory is too stupid to dismiss out of hand, and so the universe of possibilities approaches infinity. Therefore the process of elimination cannot be used.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The two are confusing simplistic with simple.

They fail to consider the context...in this case, "simplest" means "the fewest number of assumptions".

Conspiracy theories make lots of assumptions, starting with the existence of a conspiracy.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Shear Studs?

My question, is:

What is so dangerous about the input data in NIST's "Hypothetical Collapse Analysis" input data?????

My next question is:

Do any of you know what "hypothetical" means?

And finally:

Why does NIST say that there were NO SHEER STUDS on the steel girder spanning between exterior column 44 and interior column 79 ( see NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343), when a paper written in 1986, shows a diagram of the girder of interest having 30 evenly spaced sheer studs???

Here is the paper: http: Seven world Trade center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects, By: John J. Salvarinas, whom was project manager for Frankle Steel.

Figure 5 clearly shows these studs in place along the girder of interest. This is where your beloved NIST says "hypothetical" (there's that word again) "collapse initiated".

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE STUDS WERE THERE!!!!!!!

and they clearly were according to this paper in 1986 !

Why would NIST say they were not there, and that is where the "poof poof" collapse initiated? Did they think no professionals would look into it???

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why would NIST say they were not there, and that is where the "poof poof" collapse initiated? Did they think no professionals would look into it???

Are you a professional?

 

[GlennB]

Why does NIST say that there were NO SHEER STUDS on the steel girder spanning between exterior column 44 and interior column 79 ( see NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343), when a paper written in 1986, shows a diagram of the girder of interest having 30 evenly spaced sheer studs???

Here is the paper: http: Seven world Trade center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects, By: John J. Salvarinas, whom was project manager for Frankle Steel.

Well, there's a conflict of opinion here then.

My understanding is that it was the floor beams rather than girders that had shear studs restraining the floor slabs. Perhaps construction was modified vs. the plans during the build? WTC7 was completed in 1987, after publication of that paper.

If you could repost your link in comprehensible form it would help. Just miss out the http: part but leave the rest as it should be.

 

[ProBonoShill]

My question, is:

What is so dangerous about the input data in NIST's "Hypothetical Collapse Analysis" input data?????

My next question is:

Do any of you know what "hypothetical" means?

And finally:

Why does NIST say that there were NO SHEER STUDS on the steel girder spanning between exterior column 44 and interior column 79 ( see NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343), when a paper written in 1986, shows a diagram of the girder of interest having 30 evenly spaced sheer studs???

Here is the paper: http: Seven world Trade center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects, By: John J. Salvarinas, whom was project manager for Frankle Steel.

Figure 5 clearly shows these studs in place along the girder of interest. This is where your beloved NIST says "hypothetical" (there's that word again) "collapse initiated".

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE STUDS WERE THERE!!!!!!!

and they clearly were according to this paper in 1986 !

Why would NIST say they were not there, and that is where the "poof poof" collapse initiated? Did they think no professionals would look into it???

Why do you keep posting the same thing in multiple threads?

Oh and the sheer stud nonsense has been debunked, try the search function Einstein.