Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, what are the "two unprecedented collapse phenomena" you are referring to? In any case, I directed the question at Zeuzzz and would like to give him the chance to respond.

This is a public forum and as long as I follow the rules, there's nothing prohibiting me from answering your request.

1) NIST proposed that steel floor beams thermally expanded leading to the failure of a single column. There is no precedence for thermal expansion leading to a single column collapse. (Not that thermal expansion itself is unprecedented as Shyam Sunder mistakenly suggested).

2) Single column failure led to global collapse.

Now, as anyone knows unprecedented does not mean impossible. However, presenting unprecedented scenarios without physical evidence is more than enough reason to be skeptical. In fact, NIST's conclusions should be taken as nothing more than fancy speculation, which it is.

Now why does expressing skepticism toward unprecedented collapse scenarios make me a Twoofer and not simply someone who does not easily accept hypotheses without physical evidence, which is what I thought this forum was for?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Anything you can't accept is a "lie"?

What other "coincidences" have been "explained away"?

You can attempt to explain away these.


http://www.nc911truth.org/911_Coincidences.html

 

[DGM]

This is a public forum and as long as I follow the rules, there's nothing prohibiting me from answering your request.

And I thought there was a rule about posting "on topic".

 

[Clayton Moore]

Gregory Melton Boyd
Trained and worked as a machinist for 10 years. Worked for a ground water company prior to getting my M.S. then worked for a government contractor doing R&D work for 7 years. For the last 8 years I have been working for Fairfax County Public Schools supervising the contracting for infrastructure replacements (generators, light poles, electrical systems, etc.).

Almond J. Hays
Consultant in environmental and chemical engineer for 40+ years; am writing a book on socialism in America. Every suspicion is confirmed.

Ahmad Solomon
40 years experience in oilfield engineering, operations and R&D
Inventor
Good knowledge of fuels and combustion
Good knowledge of drilling rig structures & foundations to sustain the rigs.

Amit Singh
Patent attorney having an electrical engineering background. Familiar with electrical power generation, communications systems, and signal processing.

Adam Klein
Project Engineer for high end residential, commercial, industrial, and anchorage work

Alan C. Gray
I am a mechanical engineer with 28 years of engineering experience. I have approximately 20 years of experience in the nuclear power industry. I was involved with the development of the corrective actions department for Cooper Nuclear Station. I had extensive training in root cause investigations. I was involved in numerous investigations to determine failure mechanisms and contributing factors.

So?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You can attempt to explain away these.


http://www.nc911truth.org/911_Coincidences.html

1. Not a coincidence.
2. Not a coincidence.
3. Not a coincidence.
4. A complete lie, and not a coincidence even if it were true.
5. Totally batcrap insane non sequitur, and not a coincidence.
6. Not a coincidence.
7. Not a coincidence.
8. Not a coincidence.
9. Not a concidence.
10. Not a coincidence.

Conclusion so far: This website is a load of unconnected pieces of information thrown out to give the semblance of a theory. Killtown is an idiot. Anybody thinking this website offers anything of value doesn't understand the meaning of the word "coincidence".

Really, Clayton, this sort of rubbish just makes you look even more clueless.

Dave

 

[000063]

This is a public forum and as long as I follow the rules, there's nothing prohibiting me from answering your request.

1) NIST proposed that steel floor beams thermally expanded leading to the failure of a single column. There is no precedence for thermal expansion leading to a single column collapse. (Not that thermal expansion itself is unprecedented as Shyam Sunder mistakenly suggested).

2) Single column failure led to global collapse.

Now, as anyone knows unprecedented does not mean impossible. However, presenting unprecedented scenarios without physical evidence is more than enough reason to be skeptical. In fact, NIST's conclusions should be taken as nothing more than fancy speculation, which it is.

Now why does expressing skepticism toward unprecedented collapse scenarios make me a Twoofer and not simply someone who does not easily accept hypotheses without physical evidence, which is what I thought this forum was for?

Oh, my mistake, I seem to have misinterpreted your position in my previous post.

1. I don't know much about that, so I'll leave it be.

2. A single weakened column failure led to other weakened and unweakened columns failing, which lead to global collapse.

Physical evidence is not actually necessary to determine what happened, I think. It would, in any case, be difficult to obtain specific evidence from the middle of X tons of debris.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Physical evidence is not actually necessary to determine what happened, I think. It would, in any case, be difficult to obtain specific evidence from the middle of X tons of debris.

It would, in fact, be impossible at this late stage, as the debris in question has been recycled; and it would probably have been impossible at the time to identify specific structural elements, as WTC7's structural components didn't contain any unique identifying marks. This is convenient for RedIbis in that he can therefore use it as a justification to reject any conclusion about WTC7's collapse that he doesn't want to accept. However, it causes him two major inconveniences that he prefers not to acknowledge: firstly, it means that he cannot consistently accept any conclusion about the cause of WTC7's collapse, as no other conclusion can be backed up by physical evidence either; and secondly, he cannot reasonably call for any new investigation into WTC7's cause of collapse, as, by the same reasoning, the true cause is unknowable.

The above, of course, is one of the many truther positions, and one that demonstrates that truthers are not attempting to determine the truth to the best precision available, but rather to dictate what truths are acceptable conclusions. The more skeptical approach would be that taken by NIST, which is to determine the most likely collapse sequence on the basis of whatever evidence is available, and to work from that provisional conclusion unless and until new evidence becomes available. RedIbis demonstrates his disinterest in rational skepticism by rejecting any provisional conclusion whatsoever on the grounds that an impossible condition has not been met.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

It would, in fact, be impossible at this late stage, as the debris in question has been recycled; and it would probably have been impossible at the time to identify specific structural elements, as WTC7's structural components didn't contain any unique identifying marks. This is convenient for RedIbis in that he can therefore use it as a justification to reject any conclusion about WTC7's collapse that he doesn't want to accept. However, it causes him two major inconveniences that he prefers not to acknowledge: firstly, it means that he cannot consistently accept any conclusion about the cause of WTC7's collapse, as no other conclusion can be backed up by physical evidence either; and secondly, he cannot reasonably call for any new investigation into WTC7's cause of collapse, as, by the same reasoning, the true cause is unknowable.

The above, of course, is one of the many truther positions, and one that demonstrates that truthers are not attempting to determine the truth to the best precision available, but rather to dictate what truths are acceptable conclusions. The more skeptical approach would be that taken by NIST, which is to determine the most likely collapse sequence on the basis of whatever evidence is available, and to work from that provisional conclusion unless and until new evidence becomes available. RedIbis demonstrates his disinterest in rational skepticism by rejecting any provisional conclusion whatsoever on the grounds that an impossible condition has not been met.

Dave

So it's ok to believe in a theory as long as it confirms your preconceived beliefs regardless of the lack of physical evidence and your false assumption that gathering supporting physical evidence is "impossible." This is the opposite of skepticism.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So it's ok to believe in a theory as long as it confirms your preconceived beliefs regardless of the lack of physical evidence and your false assumption that gathering supporting physical evidence is "impossible."

No; as anyone can see, that's your dishonestly-worded strawman misrepresentation of the argument I actually made. But, ironically, that's usually the truther approach; physical evidence is generally assumed to have been faked, meaning that the gathering of valid supporting physical evidence is in effect impossible, so the truther chooses to believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by thermite and explosives regardless of the lack of physical evidence for any such claim.

This is the opposite of skepticism.

Fully agreed; the strawman you propose is directly opposed to skepticism. Skepticism, as I already said, involves drawing provisional conclusions from whatever evidence is available, rather than claiming that no conclusion may be drawn due to the absence of evidence that cannot possibly be gathered.

So, if you're not taking the position that it's impossible at this stage to gather physical evidence concerning the collapse mechanism for WTC7, would you like to outline, as a good skeptic should, exactly how the evidence you require might be gathered?

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

So it's ok to believe in a theory as long as it confirms your preconceived beliefs regardless of the lack of physical evidence and your false assumption that gathering supporting physical evidence is "impossible." This is the opposite of skepticism.

What you refer to as "preconceived beliefs" the rest of us call "painfully obvious".

There is far, far less physical evidence for controlled demo (ie - zero) than there is for fire induced collapse.

Listen closely -

It is very possible to not know 100 percent how something happened, while at the same time being 100 percent sure how it didn't happen.

Read it slowly so it sinks in.

We don't know for sure how badly the damage from WTC 1 contributed to the collapse. We can guess, because we do know that it knocked the sprinkler system out. We can't be 100 percent sure of the exact fire progression, despite the silly Sarns graphic.

However, we can say, for absolute certainty, that explosives were NOT a contributing factor.


(And we can say 100 percent for sure that Silverstein did NOT make out like a bandit.)

 

[tfk]

How can NIST's final report on the collapse of WTC 7 be considered conclusive without any physical evidence to support its two unprecedented collapse phenomena?

Ahhhh, I see.

So you must be opposed to any new investigation of the collapse of any of those buildings.

Because no one can produce or access (your narrow definition of) physical evidence, at this point, to support any conclusion.


tk

PS. I consider there to be a fair mountain of physical evidence for what happened on 9/11. I consider original video tapes recorded on that day to be incredibly valuable physical evidence. I consider original blueprints & shop drawings to be valuable physical evidence. I consider the records of the engineers who photographed, examined and analyzed the remains of columns, trusses, support seats, etc. to be physical evidence.

That's just me...

 

[The Platypus]

So it's ok to believe in a theory as long as it confirms your preconceived beliefs regardless of the lack of physical evidence and your false assumption that gathering supporting physical evidence is "impossible." This is the opposite of skepticism.

These self projection, reverse psychology games you 911 CTers love to play are really old, sad and pathetically obvious...

Do you really think nobody would notice that this is exactly what allot of people have been trying to tell you conspiracy believers, is NOT ok and to stop doing, for years now.

Really? Really?

 

[000063]

So it's ok to believe in a theory as long as it confirms your preconceived beliefs regardless of the lack of physical evidence and your false assumption that gathering supporting physical evidence is "impossible." This is the opposite of skepticism.

I want you to propose a method whereby already recycled material or material somewhere in a landfill is identified among thousands of nigh-identical pieces as being from a specific location within a collapsed building.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

1) NIST proposed that steel floor beams thermally expanded leading to the failure of a single column. There is no precedence for thermal expansion leading to a single column collapse. (Not that thermal expansion itself is unprecedented as Shyam Sunder mistakenly suggested).

Given that the number of high rise towers that have had serious fires is low, furthermore the number that have unfought fires is lower still and the number of buildings exactly like WTC7 is 1 the fact that the collapse was unprecedented is probable, not an anomaly.

2) Single column failure led to global collapse.

Now, as anyone knows unprecedented does not mean impossible. However, presenting unprecedented scenarios without physical evidence is more than enough reason to be skeptical. In fact, NIST's conclusions should be taken as nothing more than fancy speculation, which it is.

In the same way that the theory of evolution is fancy speculation then yes, it was. They were asked to find out how WTC7 might have failed as it did. A definitive answer was never possible as there simply was insufficient data so they did the best they could given the data they had and reasonable assumptions. They found design features that could have and likely did cause the failure of a single column to trigger the global collapse. AS someone already posted you are asking for proof that they are right when that was NEVER possible. Given that they are immensely more qualified and equipped to come to their answer than all the twoofers in the world put together and that their answer rings no alarm bells in this Mech. Eng, sorry but I'll chose to accept their answer as reasonable and yours as insane gibberish.

Now why does expressing skepticism toward unprecedented collapse scenarios make me a Twoofer and not simply someone who does not easily accept hypotheses without physical evidence, which is what I thought this forum was for?

You are simply not qualified to have a valid opinion on the subject. Your problem is not the lack of proof but the lack of self awareness that would let you grasp your limitations and understand you could no more understand the NIST report than I could understand string theory. I could be very skeptical of string theory but I know that I simply have no value to add on the subject. Similarly you have nothing of value to add on the collapse of WTC7.

 

[tfk]

Red,

It's intentionally deceptive statements like this ...

... (Not that thermal expansion itself is unprecedented as Shyam Sunder mistakenly suggested).

... that show that, while you purty up your language and imagine yourself intellectually superior to the clueless trolls (ergo & bill smith), you are in fact cut from exactly the same cloth.

Shyam-Sunder (that's his last name, not first & last name, btw) is a PhD in structural engineering.

Are you so delusional that you imagine that he is unaware of the phenomenon? That he doesn't know how mercury thermometers and bimetallic strips operate? Or is unaware of the reason behind one of the most basic tools of structural engineering: expansion joints?

Are you so paranoid that you think that he lied about its existence, hoping nobody would notice?

Or are you merely thrashing about wildly looking for any opportunity, no matter how contrived, to say "NIST made a mistake"?

You are recklessly cavalier with your own credibility when you make throw-away statements like this.


tk

 

[sylvan8798]

You can attempt to explain away these.


http://www.nc911truth.org/911_Coincidences.html

70: Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base, enjoyed pork chops, drank to excess and did cocaine

Attempt to explain how this is a "coincidence".

Haven't you found a dictionary yet? dictionary.com is just a click away...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Attempt to explain how this is a "coincidence".

Or, indeed, in what sense it's actually true...

Dave

 

[sylvan8798]

So it's ok to believe in a theory as long as it confirms your preconceived beliefs regardless of the lack of physical evidence and your false assumption that gathering supporting physical evidence is "impossible." This is the opposite of skepticism.

Why did NIST come up with what is obvious to you is an incorrect explanation?
1) They were paid, threatened, bribed, extorted. (why not come up with something more believable by the masses and throw in some pictures, computer simulations, etc.?)
2) They are really stupid and it's the best they could do. Truthers just know more about the subject. Unfortunately, there were no truthers on the investigation team, or if there were, they were ignored. Ego, you know.
3) Other?

 

[RedIbis]

No; as anyone can see, that's your dishonestly-worded strawman misrepresentation of the argument I actually made. But, ironically, that's usually the truther approach; physical evidence is generally assumed to have been faked, meaning that the gathering of valid supporting physical evidence is in effect impossible, so the truther chooses to believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by thermite and explosives regardless of the lack of physical evidence for any such claim.

This is the very definition of a strawman since I was addressing WTC 7 and you built up a strawman about the towers.

And no, I never suggested that physical evidence was faked for WTC 7 since NIST didn't use any of it to support their hypotheses, so how could I claim it was faked?

The rest of your post is more convoluted obfuscation.

 

[RedIbis]

PS. I consider there to be a fair mountain of physical evidence for what happened on 9/11. I consider original video tapes recorded on that day to be incredibly valuable physical evidence.

You obviously don't understand the difference between documentary evidence and physical evidence. Please research.

I consider original blueprints & shop drawings to be valuable physical evidence.

You obviously don't understand the difference between documentary evidence and physical evidence. Please research.

I consider the records of the engineers who photographed, examined and analyzed the remains of columns, trusses, support seats, etc. to be physical evidence.

Again, you are listing documentary evidence, and it bears repeating: NIST did not analyze or present any WTC 7 steel to support their rather wild collapse hypotheses.

That's just me...

One would hope, but it's not just you. Many people here don't understand the difference between documentary and physical evidence. And many so-called skeptics and debunkers don't realize that NIST did not analyze or present any WTC 7 steel or any other physical evidence to support their rather wild collapse hypotheses.