Grizzly Bear said:
"If you have no plans to continue a lengthy discussion I'd at least be interested in dealing with the "first time in history argument". You showed an apparent surprise at me mentioning a few things related to rejecting it. Would you mind sharing?"
To do so would be to address your lack of sympathy for statistics and incredulity about the event.
Your exhausting academic recitations are comparable to a religious fanatic quoting the bible to an atheist.
While I am not in disagreement with the science behind your lecturing, I am in disagreement with how readily you feel your arguments describe what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.
You tend to go on about things not argued as if this makes a case for what happened.
I have no argument with;
progressive collapse, being a legal definition in the professional environment.
But just because the definition exists, does not mean it applies to WTC7.
Likewise, the occurrence of a first time event does not immediately qualify it as proof of the impossible.
Unless, the event is known to be extremely difficult to induce through natural un-aided processes, and the technical explanation for the event is totally lacking in credibility.
There is no question that how a building collapses under the forces of nature is going to be effected by how it was constructed. But, if a collapse is pre-engineered, it can be designed to collapse in similar fashion as would buildings of totally different construction.
A big part of the problem is your willingness to accept a naturally-occurring
"right set of circumstances".
In my opinion, the greatest and most realistic probability is that such a
"right set of circumstances" could never occur, and that the probability with the most credibility, is that the right set of circumstances were manufactured.
The NIST themselves struggled to find a credible way of denying the obvious. You may argue they didn't spend 7 years on the report, but that would not be completely true. They did release a lengthy preliminary report on WTC7 in 2004, so clearly they had been dealing with the subject since 9/11.
The 2004 report was quite interesting, given that the NIST, in the Final Report altered some of their original critical findings (thermal images and shear studs for example) to favor their final collapse hypothesis.
And that is all it is and ever will be, nothing more than a poorly constructed hypothesis.
As an example;
NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT
"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."
"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center [apart]."
"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."
The NIST, in their
2008 WTC 7 FINAL REPORT, incorporating their previous report's original language where ever possible, chose to make a couple of "edits" to the original 2004 text.
"Most of the beams --- ------- were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."
"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - -- -- 2 ft on center [apart]."
"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for ---- -- the core girders."
These are a
serious omissions.
All the more so because it clearly establishes that original report material (2004), was altered without any appendix explanation.
We end up with two critically different translations.
The 2004 original wording undermines the NIST Official Story.
The 2008 edited wording, supports the NIST Official Story.
In effect, we have the NIST saying in 2004, that
most of the girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of
shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced
1-2 feet apart. And that
many of the 'core' girders did not show shear studs in the design drawings.
In 2008, we have the NIST in effect saying, most of the beams,
but not most of the girders,were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced
2 feet apart. And that
none of the 'core girders' showed shear studs in the design drawings.
Continuing on.
Yes, you are right that
"it was the first time in history that planes were used as an instrument of a suicide attack on a large skyscraper", but that is irrelevant to WTC7, as is your digression about the WTC Twin Towers.
It is significant that you pay so little attention to the fire behavior in WTC7, especially since the NIST hypothesis is dependent on that behavior.
Another example of the NIST misrepresentation is shown in this set of images. The thermal display on the left is an accurate representation of the critical floor 12 fire at 2:00 p.m. as seen in the middle photo. The thermal image on the right is what the NIST depicted as an accurate representation for the same time and location.
Yes, you are right that
"it was the first time in history that planes were used as an instrument of a suicide attack on a large skyscraper", but that is irrelevant to WTC7, as is your digression about the WTC Twin Towers.
It is significant that you pay so little attention to the fire behavior in WTC7, especially since the NIST hypothesis is dependent on that behavior.
As I said;
A theory that requires an enormous amount of targeted heat focused on column 79 over 6 floors. A theory that even the NIST's own thermal model and external photography fail to support.
The center of the upper right quadrant is where column 79 is located. From 4:00 p.m. to the 5:20 p.m. global collapse time, the thermal activity was continually declining around column 79.
In an environment where the amount of heat was declining, thermal expansion should also be declining. If the NIST hypothesis was true, column 79 should have failed earlier, in conjunction with the peak fire activity in the designated failure zone. But, according to the NIST's own documentation, despite diminishing fire activity on the critical floor 12, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. critical steel kept expanding to the point of critical instability and buckling.
Yet you can't even allow a minute bit of objectivity and agree that this is a bit unexpected.
There is such a wealth of material discrediting the NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7.
I could go into Dr. Greening's letter to the NIST, which they ignored, about how the fuel loading figures used by the NIST in their WTC7 fire simulations were totally unrealistic.
The list of problems goes on and on.
But believe what you wish to believe.
MM
