Such as examining suspected thermitic material but failing to perform a single test that would definitively identify it as thermitic? Even though such tests were trivially easy and cheap to perform?
Those adults?
Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7
- Thread starter Marokkaan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ae911truth wtc 7
Such as examining suspected thermitic material but failing to perform a single test that would definitively identify it as thermitic? Even though such tests were trivially easy and cheap to perform?
Those adults?
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
Maybe I didn't read back to the beginning of the argument in that case. I can't see any problem with that reasoning.
No one in the 911 truth movement has done any careful research. Gage has taken hearsay, lies and delusions and formed a non-profit corporation to raise money so he can raise more money and travel all over the world.
There has been no rational research done by 911 truth, so there has not been a great deal of time spent doing more than making DVDs to sell, ideas to sell to people who can't think for themselves. Why waste time thinking when 911 truth has all the answers packaged for those who prefer delusions, conspiracy theories with an infinite self life for those who lack knowledge and refuse to be skeptical.
Ironic 911 truth uses the media for their evidence. Example, the terrorists are alive. Real skeptics use logic and critical thinking (knowledge, and research, based on reality) to figure out 911, not using an "official story" or MSM claims, but verifying and forming rational conclusions. Hard to call 911 truth followers and leaders skeptics when they make up lies of terrorists alive from the very MSM they claim to be skeptics of. Worse, the thermite is made up by mad men and nuts, and again 911 truth followers are not skeptic of the delusions they spread freely without thinking.
Skeptics see the OP video is nonsense; truthers can't, they come unarmed with evidence. Proof of 911 truth failure; no Pulitzer Prize for what would be the biggest conspiracy of all time. Pulitzer for Watergate, in a year, failure for 911 truth, instantly, faster than a micro-lightning ball cool down.
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,979
Why do you say this? Did you ask the moderators if lying was permissible? You have proof of these lies?
Miragememories
Banned
I have proof of what I say.
It came in a pm reply from one of the JREF Mods when I complained about members lying to support their arguments.
MM
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Fresh Kills landfill, Staten Island. All they need is a shovel. They don't even have to leave New York.
Also, tons of scientists at FK handled the metal by hand while looking for remains, for, IIRC, several thousand man hours. They apparently didn't notice anything.
Wait, so you're already coming up with excuses as to why people won't believe you?
You've had weeks, if not months, to produce evidence Larry "made out like a bandit". You have not produced that evidence.
The lurkers support you in email?
If they did it, then ipso facto it was possible?
That doesn't explain why people around and even inside the buildings didn't suffer barotrauma injuries from the hypothetical explosions. I've heard truthers waffle about sound attenuation, but they seem reluctant to do the math themselves.
The steel in the towers was marked to location. Where the markings were not destroyed by the collapse, they knew where the steel location. Thousand of pages from NIST and other studies make Gage look like a moron. Gage's nuts failed to read or research anything on 911; if they had, and they are rational people, they would not sign Gage's delusional petition for nuts who fail to think for themselves.
The exterior of the building was lateral support for the WTC towers and supplied support for 50 percent of the gravity loads. The steel grade and strength was selected based on design.
90 exterior panel were recovered from the towers, 42 were identified to their location.
NIST had 4 exterior panel identified to be in WTC 1 hit by the aircraft.
NIST studied 16 exterior panel from WTC 2, 4 near the impact floors.
I suggest reading all NIST reports.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,960
I'd be willing to say with high confidence that most of the comments going into the direction of CD for building 7, or attempts to rationalize the collapse in those terms haven't read the NIST, let alone picked up a single engineering or design hand book. It stands to reason if the topic is so dang interesting, the logical first step would be to educate one-self on the specialized topics rather than spend time using biased ignorance to spray all over the canvas. Mistake number 1 of the CD believers, thinking everything in these topics amounts to something as simplistic as common sense.
Short answer: I don't know.
But I suspect that this is not true, because reading the accounts of that day by Brent Blanchard, his company (Protec) had seismometers active in Manhattan that morning.
Protec does CDs. That's precisely what the seismometers are for: to monitor the strength of the ground waves that result.
There would be no purpose for seismometers if they were not doing CDs.
My inference.
tk
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
When and where were these seismometers installed? As far as I am aware, the only seismic data we have of the plane impacts and collapses of 1+2 are from the geologists at Columbia University.
I don't know, but would indere, that Protec brought in seismometers only when they first came in to start with clean-up work later that day.
Surely you are not suggesting that Protec was about to blow up a building in Manhattan that day?
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
It's under Assertion #4. For some reason I can't cut and paste this article.
In my experience it is typical for projects that drive piles next to abutting buildings to hire a testing lab to do a survey of adjacent buildings likely to experience vibrations, for liability/claim reasons, install "strain/crack sensors" for differential monitoring of existing cracks and monitor ground vibrations at edges of adjacent buildings during pile driving. In New York construction activities and standard demolition can cause harmful vibrations to adjacent buildings and are monitored to prevent unsubstantiated lawsuits.
Protec not only does CDs, they provide vibration monitoring services for contractors.
http://www.protecservices.com/Services.php
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Having heard the conspiracy theories, I started out from a presumption of doubt about the whole thing. On looking at, and evaluating, the evidence, the overwhelming majority of that doubt vanished extremely quickly. I would agree with some people that there is a possibility that some of the US security services may have had a somewhat less vague idea of what was in store than they admit to, but the evidence merely doesn't exclude that possibility; it certainly doesn't positively support it, and tends on balance to argue against it.
Not much room for doubt on WTC7, frankly. The idea of deliberately demolishing a building nobody's ever heard of, and explaining it away as a consequence of a pair of prior building collapses that have been shown far, far beyond reasonable doubt to have been entirely unexpected in the light of what was known just before the occurred, is so far-fetched, pointless and personally dangerous to the people planning it as to be an utterly insane proposition. Truthers like to obscure that overview by focusing on the finest possible details, like the ever-popular 2.25 seconds of freefall; but if you look at the collapse of WTC7 in the context of the other events of the day, all of which have been proven time after time to have been consequences of the attacks by al-Qaeda, no CD theory even begins to offer the vaguest possibility of ever making sense.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Fresh Kills landfill site was officially designated as a crime scene, and was subject to the normal restrictions on entry to a crime scene, while the debris was being examined. Debris from Ground Zero was taken there and searched by over a thousand FBI agents for anything of interest. They weren't specifically requested to search for evidence of explosive devices, but nor were they requested to ignore any such evidence. It's a matter for speculation what they would have actually noticed, but I find it hard to believe they would have either failed to observe or failed to report anything suggestive of explosived devices.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
The problem with that reasoning is that it's unfinished. A skeptic should, indeed, be skeptical of NIST's conclusions. However, this is not the same as rejecting NIST's conclusions. Rather, a skeptic should consider what evidence is available, and form the best possible provisional conclusion on the basis of that evidence, pending the discovery of further evidence. The conclusion to be sought, in this case, is the general one of what caused WTC7's collapse, and the principal candidates are: (1) Some combination of fire and impact damage, (2) Explosives, (3) Thermite, (4) Directed beam energy weapons and (5) nuclear explosives. (4) and (5) can immediately be rejected as reasonable conclusions because they are batcrap crazy. (2) can be very quickly rejected because there were no sufficiently loud noises recorded or reported at the appropriate time to initiate a collapse. (3) can be rejected as a reasonable conclusion because no plausible hypothesis has ever been offered as to how it might be achieved, and because there is no precedent for the collapse of a building being caused by thermite attached to the structural supports.
(1) is not only the sole remaining candidate, but is supported by other facts. For example, collapse of a building, particularly a steel-framed building or section of a building, due to fire and impact damage is not an extraordinary event; it has been observed on several occasions unrelated to 9/11. NIST's collapse hypothesis is a reasonable one, consistent with the known laws of physics and properties of materials (and therefore based on physical evidence, as this is how those laws and properties were determined) and with the known structure of WTC7. It's supported by documentary and testamentary evidence of the collapse, and by demonstrative evidence in the form of computer modelling. It would be demonstrated to a higher level of confidence if it were also supported by analysis of specific steel samples from WTC7, but due to the absence of any sufficiently good identifying features on WTC7 steel this wasn't attempted. However, it isn't necessary to accept the specific NIST collapse scenario in detail to conclude that WTC7 collapsed due to fire and impact damage; even without the NIST collapse analysis, it's still the only reasonable conclusion.
Dave
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
Not to mention the National Science Foundation.
sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
It's kind of insulting, really, to those of us with years of education and experience in the various relevant subjects to be told that the whole matter is just "obvious", or "common sense", or "middle school physics". Which truther was it who suggested they could design structural framing based on common sense?
