NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[Edx]

ROFL. You believe it is impossible for explosives to simultaneously remove columns or roll buildings in their footprint?

Linear shaped charge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec5npXUR3KI

Some nice rolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU

lol no evidence shaped charges were used

No evidence on steel
No evidence of explosives in rubble
No evidence of such loud explosive detonations

They produce a video of a loud bang, which contains a likely fraudulently inserted explosion sound (wouldnt be the first time truthers committed such fraud), but even if it wasnt it would still be AFTER WTC1+2 collapsed and 7 HOURS before WTC7 collapsed. What shaped charge of any kind works like that?

You guys claim that WTC7's connections were all severed instantaneously, how does that happen with an explosion hours before? Perhaps these explosives of yours send the sound back in time, to avoid detection. Very clever!

Your second video doesn't contain any audio, what a surprise?

Here's an actual demolition:

CLOSE UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nti7fdZebs
FAR AWAY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

This is why we say truthers propose hush-o-bombs, since they claim the explosion was quiet and that's the reason why you dont hear massive detonations. Bizzarly they will also be likely to simultaneously post that video that you did which shows a loud explosion.

These demolitions however do resemble much closer what happened on 911. No explosives necessary and no need to come up with hush-o-bombs to explain it. Before you hand wave these away like all truthers do, remember all of Gage's "indicators of explosive demolition" is disproved just by watching this video. Not of course the molten metal, but then that's not a characteristic of any controlled demolition anywhere ever.

 

[cmatrix]

ROFL, you believe the columns were removed simultaneously and that WTC7 fell into its footprint.

ROFL You believe that free fall of a building can be attained without all supports being removed simultaneously and that no CDs fall into their own footprint.

 

[cmatrix]

Except the failures which lead to this event were progressive, not instantaneous. You lot need to stop putting a mental block on the Penthouse collapse and the subsequent east-west progression. You guys can't seem to complete a simply case study task, which is proving quite dismaying.


Which of course is perfectly reasonable to bring up providing that you can show compelling evidence of their presence which includes but is not limited to:

------
physical remnants recovered

140 decibel sounds originating from the building, sequentially going off
------

which is simply non-existent at any point during the entire event. A non-crackpot would clearly be skeptical given your obviously incomplete grasp on research of course. Why you still question that is quite... curious...

If the remaining building supports were not removed simultaneously there would be no free fall. There was free fall. That means the remaining supports were removed simultaneous not progressively.

How can evidence be recovered when access to it is disallowed? Explosions can be muted with Romex blasting mats. Audio can be edited just like the recently released videos from NIST were clearly edited. From a scientific standpoint the CD theory is the only non-crackpot kook theory to explain WTC 7. On these grounds a true skeptic would reject the official theory and prefer the CD one.

 

[Dave Rogers]

ROFL You believe that free fall of a building can be attained without all supports being removed simultaneously and that no CDs fall into their own footprint.

ROFL, you think nobody can spot a strawman fallacy.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the remaining building supports were not removed simultaneously there would be no free fall. There was free fall. That means the remaining supports were removed simultaneous not progressively.

That's unusually ridiculous even by your standards. All that's required for freefall is that there is negligible support. It says nothing about the history of how support was removed.

Explosions can be muted with Romex blasting mats.

Not enough. Even with blasting mats, the sound would still have registered.

Audio can be edited just like the recently released videos from NIST were clearly edited.

Do you have any other reason to believe that than that it's essential to your theory to believe it?

From a scientific standpoint the CD theory is the only non-crackpot kook theory to explain WTC 7. On these grounds a true skeptic would reject the official theory and prefer the CD one.

If that's what the voices in your head are telling you, who are we to argue?

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Thank you for lying. It just makes it easier for everyone to see that you have no interest in honest understanding of 9/11.

Now, let's ignore your strawman argument and get back to what I was actually saying you have no evidence for: an explosive demolition of a building that produces an extended period of freefall. Do you have anything better than YouTube videos? Like, for instance, any actual measurements of the acceleration of a falling building?

If it's too difficult for you, I can tell you how to do the calculations.

Dave

There is no lie and no straw man. No math is needed for simple logic. I guess simple logic is too difficult for you so I'll just tell you how to do it. Shaped charges are used to simultaneously remove support columns of a building. If all supports of a building were removed simultaneously with shaped charges there would be no resistance to gravity (free fall).

 

[Architect]

There is no lie and no straw man. No math is needed for simple logic. I guess simple logic is too difficult for you so I'll just tell you how to do it. Shaped charges are used to simultaneously remove support columns of a building. If all supports of a building were removed simultaneously with shaped charges there would be no resistance to gravity (free fall).

When it rains, I get wet. I am wet, therefore it must be raining.

 

[twinstead]

There is no lie and no straw man. No math is needed for simple logic. I guess simple logic is too difficult for you so I'll just tell you how to do it. Shaped charges are used to simultaneously remove support columns of a building. If all supports of a building were removed simultaneously with shaped charges there would be no resistance to gravity (free fall).

The trouble I have is

1. There is no evidence for any shaped charges being set off or being installed or being found in the rubble.

2. A crap-load of pretty smart people (not just on this forum but in the real world) totally disagree with you.

3. I personally don't think you are objective enough, nor do you have the required skill set, to be trusted making sweeping proclamations about what did or didn't happen on that day. Ideologues make TERRIBLE investigators.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the remaining building supports were not removed simultaneously there would be no free fall. There was free fall. That means the remaining supports were removed simultaneous not progressively.

Actually, I just realised what you did there. You've got so confused by the idiocy that you spout that you've mixed two bits of it up. So let me remind you: you believe that the building could only be in freefall if the supports were blown up by explosives, and you believe it could only fall without tilting if the supports were removed simultaneously. Now, you also think that the supports could only have been removed simultaneously if they were blown up, so you believe that the lack of tilt indicates explosives too; but you don't believe that freefall implies simultaneous removal of supports.

If it helps you keep track of your own fantasies, here's a handy chart.


You might like to refer to this next time you forget what to think.

Dave

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There is no lie and no straw man. No math is needed for simple logic. I guess simple logic is too difficult for you so I'll just tell you how to do it. Shaped charges are used to simultaneously remove support columns of a building. If all supports of a building were removed simultaneously with shaped charges there would be no resistance to gravity (free fall).

When it rains, I get wet. I am wet, therefore it must be raining.

cmatrix's argument is simple, all right, but it ain't logic.

It's illogic. To be more specific, cmatrix is committing the fallacy known as affirming the consequent. To be fair, he's had a lot of practice, and commits that fallacy as well as anyone.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I guess simple logic is too difficult for you so I'll just tell you how to do it. Shaped charges are used to simultaneously remove support columns of a building. If all supports of a building were removed simultaneously with shaped charges there would be no resistance to gravity (free fall).

Your demonstration of "simple logic" is one of the most perfectly formed examples of the fallacy of affirming the consequent I've ever seen. Thanks for the laugh, cmatrix; you're pure comedy gold.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

lol no evidence shaped charges were used

No evidence on steel
No evidence of explosives in rubble
No evidence of such loud explosive detonations

They produce a video of a loud bang, which contains a likely fraudulently inserted explosion sound (wouldnt be the first time truthers committed such fraud), but even if it wasnt it would still be AFTER WTC1+2 collapsed and 7 HOURS before WTC7 collapsed. What shaped charge of any kind works like that?

You guys claim that WTC7's connections were all severed instantaneously, how does that happen with an explosion hours before? Perhaps these explosives of yours send the sound back in time, to avoid detection. Very clever!

Your second video doesn't contain any audio, what a surprise?

Here's an actual demolition:

CLOSE UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nti7fdZebs
FAR AWAY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

This is why we say truthers propose hush-o-bombs, since they claim the explosion was quiet and that's the reason why you dont hear massive detonations. Bizzarly they will also be likely to simultaneously post that video that you did which shows a loud explosion.

These demolitions however do resemble much closer what happened on 911. No explosives necessary and no need to come up with hush-o-bombs to explain it. Before you hand wave these away like all truthers do, remember all of Gage's "indicators of explosive demolition" is disproved just by watching this video. Not of course the molten metal, but then that's not a characteristic of any controlled demolition anywhere ever.

How can evidence be obtained when access to it is denied? Most of the WTC steel was immediately removed and recycled. The rest is buried or otherwise not accessible. You admit that videos can be tampered with like the recently released NIST videos. So sounds could be removed?

We claim that all remaining support of WTC 7 was removed simultaneously. If a some support was removed seven hours or seven weeks before it is completely irrelevant.

Your last video shows buildings having all their supports one one floor mechanically pulled simultaneously. What is this supposed to prove? They resemble the WTC collapses? Even though there were no fires and no planes in them or that there were no cables used for the WTC?

 

[Architect]

And yet I'll just bet you can't provide a detailed technical critique of the NIST findings beyond "free fall" and "simultaneous", eh?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And yet I'll just bet you can't provide a detailed technical critique of the NIST findings beyond "free fall" and "simultaneous", eh?

He can't even remember which is which.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

ROFL, you think nobody can spot a strawman fallacy.

Dave

I've never seen a JREF debunker correctly spot one, including now.

 

[cmatrix]

That's unusually ridiculous even by your standards. All that's required for freefall is that there is negligible support. It says nothing about the history of how support was removed.
[...]
Dave

What's required for free fall is no measurable support or no measurable energy transfer (besides GPE to KE). You are claiming progressive column failure can involve no measurable energy transfer. That's unusually ridiculous even by your standards.

 

[excaza]

there were no cables used for the WTC?

Prove it.

 

[cmatrix]

Actually, I just realised what you did there. You've got so confused by the idiocy that you spout that you've mixed two bits of it up. So let me remind you: you believe that the building could only be in freefall if the supports were blown up by explosives, and you believe it could only fall without tilting if the supports were removed simultaneously. Now, you also think that the supports could only have been removed simultaneously if they were blown up, so you believe that the lack of tilt indicates explosives too; but you don't believe that freefall implies simultaneous removal of supports.

If it helps you keep track of your own fantasies, here's a handy chart.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644cd2d7fbeb2fa.jpg[/qimg]
You might like to refer to this next time you forget what to think.

Dave

You're right that I'm confused by idiocy, just not my idiocy. You start with a straw man "you believe that the building could only be in freefall if the supports were blown up by explosives?". I don't believe that at all. I know that the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously. Explosives are the most reasonable culprit. You paraphrase that straw man then try to support it with a complete falsehood: "you don't believe that freefall implies simultaneous removal of supports".

 

[cmatrix]

cmatrix's argument is simple, all right, but it ain't logic.

It's illogic. To be more specific, cmatrix is committing the fallacy known as affirming the consequent. To be fair, he's had a lot of practice, and commits that fallacy as well as anyone.

ROFL There is no affirming the consequent (if P then Q; Q; therefore P). Dave wanted me to prove that CD could result in free fall (if P then Q). I said: "Shaped charges are used to simultaneously remove support columns of a building. If all supports of a building were removed simultaneously with shaped charges there would be no resistance to gravity (free fall)." I in fact showed P proving Q. Now I also showed the paucity of logic in JREF debunkers.

 

[cmatrix]

Your demonstration of "simple logic" is one of the most perfectly formed examples of the fallacy of affirming the consequent I've ever seen. Thanks for the laugh, cmatrix; you're pure comedy gold.

Dave

We'll see pure comedy gold if you ever tried to support the ridiculous pronouncements you made above.