• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

RedIbis, from what you have said then, I believe I can add to my list of unanswered questions lack of actual physical evidence (as opposed to testimony and ancillary photographic evidence) concerning the NIST conjectures that:

RedIbis said:
1) NIST proposed that steel floor beams thermally expanded leading to the failure of a single column.

2) Single column failure led to global collapse.
Click to expand...

I can note NIST's response with regards to this:

In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel.
Click to expand...

However, it still appears to be the case that there is no physical evidence for the conjectures, just as there is no physical evidence for the alternate conjecture of controlled demolition.

I am still looking forward to hearing from Zeuzzz.
 
LSSBB said:
However, it still appears to be the case that there is no physical evidence for the conjectures, just as there is no physical evidence for the alternate conjecture of controlled demolition.

I am still looking forward to hearing from Zeuzzz.
Click to expand...

But redibis demands that you show him a "thermally expanded" and "buckled" column 79.

On another note: Redibis doesn't understand that building materials are pretty standard and there's documentation devoted just to listing physical material properties for every standard construction from wood to steel which tell you just about everything you need to know about it when applying to construction and design. Thermal properties, ultimate stresses, the strength and applicability of specific size which are used to calculate loads and drive engineering decisions, name it... the docs have it from real tests. Red will claim that this doesn't count.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is the assumption false. Where would NIST have collected this physical evidence from?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
But redibis demands that you show him a "thermally expanded" and "buckled" column 79.

On another note: Redibis doesn't understand that building materials are pretty standard and there's documentation devoted just to listing physical material properties for every standard construction from wood to steel which tell you just about everything you need to know about it when applying to construction and design. Thermal properties, ultimate stresses, the strength and applicability of specific size which are used to calculate loads and drive engineering decisions, name it... the docs have it from real tests. Red will claim that this doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Grizzly Bear, I believe you present all valid points. He still, in my opinion, needs to explain why not being able to find column 79 in the rubble justifies discrediting NIST, especially when there is no physical evidence of the alternate hypothesis of controlled demolition, and in light of the amount of non-physical evidence used by NIST to build their case.
 
Last edited:
NIST did not analyze or present any WTC 7 steel to support their rather wild collapse hypotheses.
Click to expand...

The MOUNTAIN of what you call documentary evidence made any collection or anaylsis of physical evidence such as steel beams from WTC 7 moot. It was simply not needed.

The hundreds of thousands of people who saw WTC 1 impact WTC 7 on the way down prove beyond a doubt that it was damaged, and that the damaged caused fires....

....that.....

dozens (hundreds??) of first responders on the ground can testify because they were there that the fire caused the building to groan, creak, buckle, and make all manner of noise that buildings aren't supposed to. This didn't take place during any single event. It was going on literally all day long. Something was drastically wrong. People who know these things looked right into cameras and said it was coming down hours before the fact. One of these intrepid folks even radioed their findings to the BBC. We all know how that went.

Physical evidence was not needed.

The only people who need anything beyond what is given are complete, total idiots who think they know more based on junk 'science' and a stupid hunch. Don't kid yourself. ANYBODY who thinks explosives took down WTC 7, or that WTC 7 was anything other than another building in a long line of casualties that day, is a complete and total idiot.
 
RedIbis said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again,you affect to misunderstand, in this case what was clearly given as an example, to try and cover your blatant misrepresentation of my earlier post. But give yourself a point for cleverly avoiding the question of how you would suggest physical evidence be obtained to study the collapse of WTC7; your entire position in this thread is based on pretending that question has never been asked.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let me repeat the question, as you seem determined to avoid it. Since you feel it important that a hypothesis should be framed which does rely on physical evidence, how do you think such evidence could now be collected, and how therefore should a new investigation into the collapse of WTC7 proceed?

Dave
 
LSSBB said:
Grizzly Bear, I believe you present all valid points. He still, in my opinion, needs to explain why not being able to find column 79 in the rubble justifies discrediting NIST, especially when there is no physical evidence of the alternate hypothesis of controlled demolition, and in light of the amount of non-physical evidence used by NIST to build their case.
Click to expand...

You mean that rock solid primer paint evidence...cough cough.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
You mean that rock solid primer paint evidence...cough cough.

MM
Click to expand...

See though, paint primer is the only thing it could be.

It's a well known fact that they protect the steel after it's cast. This steel is then used in the construction of things like big buildings.

SO

If a building with this steel collapsed, would it not be obvious that you're going to find some paint on it? Yea, I'd think so.

As smart as twoofers seem to like to fancy themselves, they sure do say stupid crap.
 
Its Impossible ...

Miragememories said:
You mean that rock solid primer paint evidence...cough cough.

MM
Click to expand...
It's Impossible For Thermite Paint To Damage Steel
It's Impossible For Thermite Paint To Damage Steel
It's Impossible For Thermite Paint To Damage Steel
...........................
​
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Please do your homework Noah.

The massive aircraft full of fuel slamming into the WTC Towers was engineered into the design. Yes the sheeple here will claim otherwise, but if you research the debate here in earlier threads, you will see the truth.
Click to expand...

No it wasnt you know it wasnt but you choose to lie about it anyway. :rolleyes:
 
It could have been thermite. It like was likely thermite in part.

But it's a riot watching a thermite debate when the nisters can't recreate how a building, 3 different huge buildings, subjected to 3 different amounts of damage/force from different angles/locations can completely destroy themselves.
 
tsig said:
See also the much more detailed Killtown 911 Oddities page

Killtown has been banned from this forum so citing him isn't winning any popularity contests.
Click to expand...

I think Dave did that.

You tried to make it seem as if I mentioned Killtown. For shame.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

The physical evidence says that damage from plane impact and the subsequent fire destroyed the buildings. The fact that you can't recognize this only proves that you don't understand physics.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It could have been thermite. It like was likely thermite in part.

But it's a riot watching a thermite debate when the nisters can't recreate how a building, 3 different huge buildings, subjected to 3 different amounts of damage/force from different angles/locations can completely destroy themselves.
Click to expand...

As usual for 911 culters, a completely sneaky and dishonest statement.

If they were subjected to amounts of damage and force from various angles and locations, then clearly they didn't, completely destroy themselves.

Isn't that what you guys around here call a stundie?
 
The Platypus said:
As usual for 911 culters, a completely sneaky and dishonest statement.

If they were subjected to amounts of damage and force from various angles and locations, then clearly they didn't, completely destroy themselves.

Isn't that what you guys around here call a stundie?
Click to expand...

Careful. You could lose your stipend with such a poppycock post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom