Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[Marokkaan]

Utter gibberish. The video and audio records made it clear that there were no explosives, and there is no known method of demolishing buildings using thermite. NIST looked for the mechanism by which the effects of impact and fire damage on the known structure of the towers led to collapse, because there were no other factors worth considering. They were looking at engineering problems, not pandering to delusional idiots.

There are eye witnesses who heard explosions.

BUt NFPA921 says, even when the evidence is hard to find, you still have to search for it.

First of all NIST has no explanation for the total collapse of the towers.

So till today they cannot explain the total collapse.

Till today they cannot explain what happened to the steel.

Till today they didnt used wtc 7 steel to examine.

Etcetera...

If you want to ignore al those facts, its fine, but other people do not want to ignore these facts.

By the same "common sense", the investigators into the 7/7 bombings should have considered the possibility that three tube trains were hit by airliners, because we know al-Qaida used airliners on 9/11.

I really dont understand so?

Several people have tried to explain how stupid that argument is. They were the first towers in history to be deliberately hit by airliners used as missiles, which doesn't fit even the most insane definition of the word "natural," so in effect you're arguing that unique circumstances can't possibly produce unique results; an utterly absurd claim.

Several people have tried to explain how stupid that argument(natural collapse due fire) is.

so in effect you're arguing that unique circumstances can't possibly produce unique results;

Is a cd with nano thermite not unique then

But let's extend your logic; no towers in history have collapsed due to thermite, so can we exclude thermite? No towers in history have been collapsed from the top down by explosives, so can we exclude top-down collapse due to explosives? No explosive demolition has ever failed to produce a loud enough bang to register on sound recording equipment, so can we rule out explosive demolition?

If we would say that, then we can rule out the natural collapse, so then we have a problem

For some reason, though, truthers will only rule out what they don't want to believe. On the other hand, they can accept the most absurd contradictions if they think their beliefs are supported.

Change the word truthers in debunkers, and i think the same.

 

[Gamolon]

Why would nist search for the answer natural collapse if high rise buildings never natural collapsed.

There you go again with your history of events to try and prove the odds of a current event.

Please show me a 208' wide x 208' long x 1300' high, tube in tube, structural steel tower that was hit by a jet in the upper third and remained standing after the fire.

If you cannot provide an example of one that remained standing, then by using your same logic, it should have collapsed as no 1300' high tower using a steel tube in tube design, has ever remained standing after being hit by a jet that caused fires.

Your turn.

 

[tsig]

I told you you can find the link and paste it yourself. Which you did.
That model is a disgrace, all that can be said. You can spin anyway you want to, but you know it is.


WTC 7 was a building "everyone" know was going to come down, and it took NIST 7 years. Tell you what that investigation should have consisted of. NIST asks the person who made the call about the structural integrity of the building, that person says why he or she did, NIST starts there, and should have an answer relatively quickly. That didn't exactly happen.

Listen you know full well ground zero was closed off quickly, the debris removed quickly, so I don't know what the evidence would say. By the way 4 million gallons of water were poured onto ground 0 in the first 10 days.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-didnt-millions-of-gallons-of-water.html

No NIST started with one premise and worked towards it the whole time. That quote is the best example of it.

To add to NIST's "model" I would add not releasing the numbers is like not having a model at all. Which is exactly where AE for truth are, but that may change.

So you're saying that the steel was disposed of as quick as possible while at the same time it was being melted in the rubble pile?

 

[Edx]

WTC 7 was a building "everyone" know was going to come down, and it took NIST 7 years. T
.

Im so bored wuith you, you ignore everyone, its like constant self delusion and ignorance.

Get this through your head, NIST did not spend years trying to find out IF the towers were going going to collapse. There is a difference between knowing the towers would probably collapse, to knowing the exact mechanism. The firefighters all thought WTC7 would collapse, but none of them would be able to tell you exactly why in order to improve building safety and for that you need to know the exact mechanisms involved.

It seems you have zero understanding of science.

To act as if you dont understand this isn't smart debate tactic it just makes you look really stupid. I am not trying to be insulting for the sake of it, I am literally telling you it makes you sound stupid.

Truthers were an irrelevant fringe before the NIST report and they were fringe afterwards, no one relevant, no professional group ever took "controlled demolition" seriously. NIST were not tasked with debunking controlled demolition, that was not their job, even though they did address some claims in their FAQ. Their task was to find out WHY the building collapsed due to fire, everyone knew that is what they were trying to do expect for a small band of incompetent nobodies that have never published a single paper in a reputable journal on 911.

 

[Sabretooth]

There are eye witnesses who heard explosions.

BUt NFPA921 says, even when the evidence is hard to find, you still have to search for it.

First of all NIST has no explanation for the total collapse of the towers.

So till today they cannot explain the total collapse.

Till today they cannot explain what happened to the steel.

Till today they didnt used wtc 7 steel to examine.

Etcetera...

If you want to ignore al those facts, its fine, but other people do not want to ignore these facts.




I really dont understand so?





Several people have tried to explain how stupid that argument(natural collapse due fire) is.

so in effect you're arguing that unique circumstances can't possibly produce unique results;

Is a cd with nano thermite not unique then




If we would say that, then we can rule out the natural collapse, so then we have a problem



Change the word truthers in debunkers, and i think the same.

Repeating yourself again, Maro?

You're still wrong.

You don't understand the NFPA and you don't understand the NCSTAR.

Stop posting your nonsense and read a book or something.

 

[jaydeehess]

I told you you can find the link and paste it yourself. Which you did.

Seems tmd did not understand my request for a link. I asked not for a link to the NIST sim,
(BTW, Here's one) I asked him what NIST says about why it looks that way.

That model is a disgrace, all that can be said. You can spin anyway you want to, but you know it is.

So Gage et al will be doing an FEA sometime soon and it will be better all the way to the roofline meeting the earth then will it? When will that be coming out? I'd like to see it.
Can you tell me why an FEA should be accurate in all details even once the structure is coming apart, please.

WTC 7 was a building "everyone" know was going to come down, and it took NIST 7 years. Tell you what that investigation should have consisted of. NIST asks the person who made the call about the structural integrity of the building, that person says why he or she did, NIST starts there, and should have an answer relatively quickly. That didn't exactly happen.

Could you rewrite the hilited part so that I can understand what you are trying to say.

NIST states quite clearly and several times, that they held off on completeing the WTC 7 report until they finished with WTC 1&2. OTOH its now been 10 years and still no comparable studies from AE911T, which is something I noted above that makes it rather hypocritical of you to complain about NIST.

Listen you know full well ground zero was closed off quickly, the debris removed quickly, so I don't know what the evidence would say.

Sure, aside from the hundreds of on site workers it was deserted and closed off. The debris was gone through by a team at Fresh Kills.

By the way 4 million gallons of water were poured onto ground 0 in the first 10 days

Yes but this is over a very large area and yet there was no incidence of 'left over' thermite burning on the top of a pile you said was hot enough to melt aluminum. Besides NO WATER was being poured on it at all for the first 30 minutes to an hour foillowing collapse yet NO evidence of thermite burning on the surface then either. So once again I ask if this heat was being supplied by thermite then what made it prefer to be under the surface?

No NIST started with one premise and worked towards it the whole time. That quote is the best example of it.

NO, he is referring to the fact that there was no reason to begin looking for something that no one had any reason to believe could be there.
No booms=no explosions
No docuemetary evidence of an explosive powerful enough to significantly weaken the supports of the towers or #7 and no evidence of a thermite burn other than one instance of an unidentifiable molten material flowing from one corner of one floor of one tower. Certainly no physical evidence of either any high explosive or thermitic substances.

To add to NIST's "model" I would add not releasing the numbers is like not having a model at all. Which is exactly where AE for truth are, but that may change.

Sorry? What numbers?

 

[jaydeehess]

No, they have a model. If you feel it's in error you have every opportunity to use the same inputs they used and demonstrate that you can do it better. AE911truth has yet to even attempt it, using the lame excuse that the NIST doesn't give them the source code. Nothing is stopping them form putting their own model together from scratch and doing it themselves... they have access to much of the same information that the NIST did.

Oh, those 'numbers'. He means source code for the program.

The only reason one would want that would be to forensically look for subterfuge in the coding.

THAT IS NOT what I have been asking for and in fact another group doing an FEA would be advised to use something other than LSDYNA to see if another such program gives a similar prediction.
OTOH they could use LSDYNA and get it themselves rather than use the same code that NIST did. If it turns out to show a different result with the exact same inputs then something is up. If it show the same thing that NIST did then,,,, AE911T will never tell us about it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why would nist search for the answer natural collapse if high rise buildings never natural collapsed.

Because someone crashed airplanes into them.

NIST didn't "search for the answer natural collapse". They searched for the mechanism leading up to the collapse. This is useful information in designing new buildings, because if structural alterations can be made, either to prevent that mechanism from occurring, or at least to slow it down, then less life might be lost in any future scenario where airliners crash into high-rise buildings. The mistake that many truthers seem to make is in believing that, prior to the NIST enquiry, the controlled demolition hypothesis was a viable alternative that was seriously considered by anyone who mattered. NIST was not tasked to debunk insane conspiracy theories, and I for one think its choice to do so over WTC7 was ill-advised.

Dave

I'd just like to add that gravity works, always.

 

[jaydeehess]

There are eye witnesses who heard explosions.

BUt NFPA921 says, even when the evidence is hard to find, you still have to search for it.

First of all NIST has no explanation for the total collapse of the towers.

So till today they cannot explain the total collapse.

Till today they cannot explain what happened to the steel.

Till today they didnt used wtc 7 steel to examine.
.

I can conclude one of two things about you from this;
never read the NIST reports
or
you cannot comprehend them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, those 'numbers'. He means source code for the program.

The only reason one would want that would be to forensically look for subterfuge in the coding.

THAT IS NOT what I have been asking for and in fact another group doing an FEA would be advised to use something other than LSDYNA to see if another such program gives a similar prediction.
OTOH they could use LSDYNA and get it themselves rather than use the same code that NIST did. If it turns out to show a different result with the exact same inputs then something is up. If it show the same thing that NIST did then,,,, AE911T will never tell us about it.

I didn't mean the source code for the program... what they're asking for apparently is the source file that was saved with the full work, if that clarifies anything. I wasn't referring to the actual source code of the program, since the proprietary nature of it would prevent them from distributing it anyway.

 

[triforcharity]

Is Maro running his uneducated trap again about NFPA 921? God, he never learns.

 

[triforcharity]

I wonder if TMD2_1 will ever address this post that debunks his entire previous delusion.

 

[tmd2_1]

So Gage et al will be doing an FEA sometime soon and it will be better all the way to the roofline meeting the earth then will it? When will that be coming out? I'd like to see it.
Can you tell me why an FEA should be accurate in all details even once the structure is coming apart, please.



Could you rewrite the hilited part so that I can understand what you are trying to say.

NIST states quite clearly and several times, that they held off on completeing the WTC 7 report until they finished with WTC 1&2. OTOH its now been 10 years and still no comparable studies from AE911T, which is something I noted above that makes it rather hypocritical of you to complain about NIST.
Sure, aside from the hundreds of on site workers it was deserted and closed off. The debris was gone through by a team at Fresh Kills.


Yes but this is over a very large area and yet there was no incidence of 'left over' thermite burning on the top of a pile you said was hot enough to melt aluminum. Besides NO WATER was being poured on it at all for the first 30 minutes to an hour foillowing collapse yet NO evidence of thermite burning on the surface then either. So once again I ask if this heat was being supplied by thermite then what made it prefer to be under the surface?




NO, he is referring to the fact that there was no reason to begin looking for something that no one had any reason to believe could be there.
No booms=no explosions
No docuemetary evidence of an explosive powerful enough to significantly weaken the supports of the towers or #7 and no evidence of a thermite burn other than one instance of an unidentifiable molten material flowing from one corner of one floor of one tower. Certainly no physical evidence of either any high explosive or thermitic substances.




Sorry? What numbers?

I don't know when or if Gage or AE for truth will release anything. We will have to have to wait and see.

Why should it be accurate? I don't know I always thought accuracy was a good thing. But I know what you are asking I think the author of the video says it best "Based on the exterior appearance of the collapse we can immediately verify that the actual collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the exterior of the NIST model. Therefor the model is wrong. It does not accurately describe reality.

In reality we see a crimp appear in the middle of the building and the rest of the building immediately lose all structural stability and begin to fall at the rate of gravity straight down as a single unit. This is controlled demolition"

You are just playing games. You know what I was saying. But I'll rewrite it. Someone (I don't know who) on 9/11 made an appraisal that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing. Hence the collapse zone..etc. NIST's investigation should have consisted of asking that person (or people) why did you make that appraisal? Then the investigation should not have taken that long from that point. Because obviously that appraisal was correct and was made for some reason.

Again because of how quick Groung zero was closed off, and because of evidence removal, I'm not sure what was found or not.

That comment speaks for itself.

You really are playing games. You know what numbers. You know the ones not released for "public safety"

But I'll link to it for you.

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

 

[tmd2_1]

I wonder if TMD2_1 will ever address this post that debunks his entire previous delusion.

If you really have a problem with that site. E-mail them and ask them to change it, and present them with what you have. If they find what you say has merit, they will change it.

 

[Edx]

If you really have a problem with that site. E-mail them and ask them to change it, and present them with what you have. If they find what you say has merit, they will change it.

UH why dont you? You're the one relying on him for your information that is demonstrably false and misleading. Can you not think for yourself? Or do you only accept information if it comes from truthers? Do you accept what Tri said in that post? If not, why not? That website is dishonest no two ways about it.

 

[triforcharity]

No, I was asking YOU to address it. You presented it as evidence of our bull **** claim. I proved beyond any and all doubt, that your claim, and the evidence you presented, is absolutely false.

Would you care to address that?

(I've emailed them a few times. They ignore it. )

 

[tmd2_1]

UH why dont you? You're the one relying on him for your information that is demonstrably false and misleading. CAn you not think for yourself?

That site is fully referenced, I have no problem with it.

 

[triforcharity]

Did you not read my post? So you're ok with believing a complete lie? Their own sources do not say what they claim it does. This is dishonest. Also known as lying.

Are you ok putting your faith in liars?

 

[Edx]

You are just playing games. You know what I was saying. But I'll rewrite it. Someone (I don't know who) on 9/11 made an appraisal that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing. Hence the collapse zone..etc.

You act like it was just one guy and all the fireighters forget eveyrthing they know about firefighting and just mindlessly believe without question something that according to truthers is impossible and can't happen. You have such a low opinion of firefighters, why is that?

 

[Edx]

That site is fully referenced, I have no problem with it.

Creationists reference a lot of things too. You are very new to people promoting crazyness arent you? Just because they reference a source doesnt mean that the source in question is valid or even says what the person says they said. It doesnt mean that the person didnt leave out or misrepresent the facts or make things up entirely.

Now, Tri made specific points, deal with it. This is like you telling us some Creationist site proves evolution wrong and when people show you exactly why its wrong, you then tell them to go take it up with the website.