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

[NoahFence]

It's not a semantic argument. This is supposed to be a skeptic's forum and for good reason, physical evidence is the Holy Grail of research. To summarize my persistence on this point:

A skeptic should maintain the same standards of doubt regardless of the emotional aspect of the event.

NIST made extraordinary claims in its WTC 7 report and presented two unprecedented phenomena in the history of architectural collapse.

These claims were not supported by any corroborating physical evidence.

A skeptic would be skeptical.

When all the facts are in, and conclusions made, there's no more need to be skeptical. This is the case in WTC 7 and 9/11 as a whole.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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?

Proof positive of this is when self proclaimed skeptics claim that the credibility rests on the belief that when professionals align with their conclusions their authority reigns supreme, and those who don't are rebuked. It's rarely if ever skepticism about the substance.

 

[Clayton Moore]

If NIST presents an official explanation of 9/11 and I disagree with much of it, am I not the skeptic?

 

[Marokkaan]

If NIST presents an official explanation of 9/11 and I disagree with much of it, am I not the skeptic?

No you are skeptic, when you defend your official story against skeptic people uhh i mean truthers. Who are skeptic about the official story, uhhh i mean, who are crazy conspirists.

 

[Oystein]

If NIST presents an official explanation of 9/11 and I disagree with much of it, am I not the skeptic?

No. Then you are a contrarian. Two different things. Learn to tell one from the other.

 

[MIKILLINI]

If NIST presents an official explanation of 9/11 and I disagree with much of it, am I not the skeptic?

I'm totally skeptical of the conspiracy theorist's argument of explosives used to bring down the towers; Lack of evidence is the sole reason.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No you are skeptic, when you defend your official story against skeptic people uhh i mean truthers. Who are skeptic about the official story, uhhh i mean, who are crazy conspirists.

No, a skeptic having doubts would seek a third party source that falls outside the scope of their existing bias, and cross check the facts. You've been busy taking pages off the "debunking the debunkers" blog, you haven't read the popular mechanics book you've criticized, you just took the arguments of a blog poster spreading political rants with no professional experience or study in the field. You haven't read any professional publications on the base concepts that could have informed you and allowed you to judge more competently the merits of AE911 and the NIST with less of a conspiracy bias. And the same applies to Clayton, Redibis, MM, and others posting with such compassion siding with these "theories." AE911's members are supposed to have years of professional experience yet they can't do the research a college freshman is able to do? That's inexcusable IMO

NIST made extraordinary claims in its WTC 7 report and presented two unprecedented phenomena in the history of architectural collapse.

These claims were not supported by any corroborating physical evidence.

And to further my point, as with the collapse of smaller steel framed buildings, the collapse of the WTC involved very specific structural conditions and unprecedentedly violent circumstances. The failure modes of each precedent resulted in characteristics that differed in many ways to eachother. A skeptic would also take into account those conditions. To draw any particular relationship between how many buildings collapsed and their respective causes runs completely asinine to logic. A point I very specifically made to Clayton Moore and in much more detail to Miragememories here. If you aren't thinking about any of those things, there's absolutely no way of getting around the fact that you "ain't" being skeptical enough.

 

[ProBonoShill]

If NIST presents an official explanation of 9/11 and I disagree with much of it, am I not the skeptic?

Well considering NIST never released an "official explanation of 9/11" I'm not sure what that makes you.

They did conduct an investigation into building collapses that day, you can read more about their objectives here:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

If you disagree with much of it, I'd suggest you stay away from tall buildings, since recommendations from that study have been implemented all over the world to improve building safety.

 

[tfk]

"… no physical evidence for WTC7 …"

Looks like truthers got themselves a new toy.

Just the latest in a long line of Major Fail, that includes "freefall speed", "into its own footprint", "no building in history", and about a dozen others.

Would somebody who follows the Truther websites check to see where this one originated, please?

No offense, Red, but your posting history has left me unconvinced that you're sharp enough to have come up with this on your own.

Which suggests that you caught this at some other website. Where truthers regularly infect each other with this sort of meme.

Kinda like a scorching case of herpes.

It's not a semantic argument.
...
These claims were not supported by any corroborating physical evidence.

You're attempting to take the single most documented engineering disaster in history, to wrap all that documentation in a box & toss it out the window.

And you're attempting to do that, to turn reality on its head, based solely upon the legal definition of the term "physical evidence".

I got some bad news for ya, Princess.
That is the very definition of a semantic argument.

Fortunately for the good guys, the question of "why the buildings fell" isn't a legal question. It's an engineering question.

And engineers (well, the good ones, at least) aren't inclined in the slightest to stick their head in the sand & ignore a ton of hard physical evidence in the form of video tapes, audio tracks, seismic recordings, etc.

Based on your semantic argument, the narrow legal definition of a term, you are perfectly welcome, invited in fact, to ignore all that evidence.

That's exactly what folks do when they have no competent arguments to offer.
That is, in fact, precisely what Truthers do best: "ignore evidence".

That's also why you're so frequently on the embarrassing end of sensible people's "pointing fingers & laughing".

I'm sure you're fairly used to that by now, tho …

 

[grandmastershek]

"… no physical evidence for WTC7 …"


You're attempting to take the single most documented engineering disaster in history, to wrap all that documentation in a box & toss it out the window.

And you're attempting to do that, to turn reality on its head, based solely upon the legal definition of the term "physical evidence".

I got some bad news for ya, Princess.
That is the very definition of a semantic argument.

Fortunately for the good guys, the question of "why the buildings fell" isn't a legal question. It's an engineering question.

And engineers (well, the good ones, at least) aren't inclined in the slightest to stick their head in the sand & ignore a ton of hard physical evidence in the form of video tapes, audio tracks, seismic recordings, etc.

Based on your semantic argument, the narrow legal definition of a term, you are perfectly welcome, invited in fact, to ignore all that evidence.

That's exactly what folks do when they have no competent arguments to offer.
That is, in fact, precisely what Truthers do best: "ignore evidence".

That's also why you're so frequently on the embarrassing end of sensible people's "pointing fingers & laughing".

I'm sure you're fairly used to that by now, tho …

 

[grandmastershek]

If NIST presents an official explanation of 9/11 and I disagree with much of it, am I not the skeptic?

Being a naysayer doesn't make you a skeptic. In the most broadest sense maybe it could apply, but I would guess most people here would say in the strictest sense that people who oppose the nonsense of "the truth" identify with scientific or philosophical skepticism. Truthers may like to pretend they do as well, but as we regularly see truthers avoid logic and evidence. By their very nature they are neither of the above, though as I already stated they often attempt to bear the garb as such. EG- Throwing around words and ideas like: debate, logic, physics, laws of motion, etc.

Its readily verifiable in that truthers avoid the fact that NIST's conclusions were subject to the highest academic rigor scientists can subject themselves to and externally validated by at least 3 professional organizations in fire science, & engineering; not to mention their own staff submitting individual studies to multiple journals. Meanwhile 9/11 Truth has concocted fake academics forums as well as sought them out, & appealed to the stupidity of people on youtube. There is no comparison between the two.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Being a naysayer doesn't make you a skeptic. In the most broadest sense maybe it could apply, but I would guess most people here would say in the strictest sense that people who oppose the nonsense of "the truth" identify with scientific or philosophical skepticism. Truthers may like to pretend they do as well, but as we regularly see truthers avoid logic and evidence. By their very nature they are neither of the above, though as I already stated they often attempt to bear the garb as such. EG- Throwing around words and ideas like: debate, logic, physics, laws of motion, etc.

Its readily verifiable in that truthers avoid the fact that NIST's conclusions were subject to the highest academic rigor scientists can subject themselves to and externally validated by at least 3 professional organizations in fire science, & engineering; not to mention their own staff submitting individual studies to multiple journals. Meanwhile 9/11 Truth has concocted fake academics forums as well as sought them out, & appealed to the stupidity of people on youtube. There is no comparison between the two.

Damage usually only proceeds in one direction, the path of least resistance. That is not what happened in WTC7(or the towers). The failure of one steel support column caused every other steel support column to fail within 30 seconds? That interpretation is like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon.

 

[NoahFence]

Damage usually only proceeds in one direction, the path of least resistance. That is not what happened in WTC7

It absolutely IS what happened.

 

[sylvan8798]

Damage usually only proceeds in one direction, the path of least resistance. That is not what happened in WTC7(or the towers). The failure of one steel support column caused every other steel support column to fail within 30 seconds? That interpretation is like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon.

Your ignorance of the subject is astounding. Why not get some relevant education in the NEXT 10 years?

 

[The Platypus]

If NIST presents an official explanation of 9/11 and I disagree with much of it, am I not the skeptic?

No you aren't.

Because roaming internet forums acting like a arrogant teenagers while attempting to manipulate, harass and bully people into believing what you want them to, and taunting anyone that doesn't instantly follow along, is not skepticism, it's being a deranged cult minion.

 

[tsig]

Damage usually only proceeds in one direction, the path of least resistance. That is not what happened in WTC7(or the towers). The failure of one steel support column caused every other steel support column to fail within 30 seconds? That interpretation is like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon.

Wait, are you saying that the collapses followed the path of most resistance?

 

[twinstead]

Damage usually only proceeds in one direction, the path of least resistance. That is not what happened in WTC7(or the towers). The failure of one steel support column caused every other steel support column to fail within 30 seconds? That interpretation is like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon.

Your ignorant incredulity is overwhelmingly unconvincing, Clayton.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

*sigh*
Instead of joining in the "you're an amateur" barrage, lets' give Clayton the benefit of the doubt by looking at "what he knows" shall we?

Damage usually only proceeds in one direction, the path of least resistance.

Inhabited buildings aren't solid as trees, they aren't inherently monolithic either. In many cases including WTC 7 they have structural elements spread across large footprint and they are considerably less rigid than a solid tree. If they loads are off kilter on these parts (AKA eccentric, and unevenly redistributed) then what do you expect? The building to still fall over like a tree? Perhaps you should drop the looney toon physics (strangely after ten years you and "like minded" believers seem to believe in this looney physics).

That is not what happened in WTC7(or the towers).

Of course WTC 7 didn't "tip over." Tipping over like a tree is a behavior that you cannot expect a large building lacking monolithic properties to do.

The failure of one steel support column caused every other steel support column to fail within 30 seconds? That interpretation is like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon.

The failure of one floor corner caused the rapid collapse of the entire corner in Ronan point. That's what a progressive collapse is, whether it's one corner, or the entire building. Tell me, have you ever studied the structural plans for WTC 7? Can you justify your contention that this is all like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon with hard engineering and design analysis? I'm thinking the answer is a resounding "no," in which case you'd better provide a good reason why anyone should pay attention to what you're arguing?

 

[BenBurch]

GB, you can compute what will happen to a structure when you tip it if you analyze it as a bridge. I did a basic analysis for the twin towers, and they utterly lacked the strength to be able to be laid on their sides without collapse. Very few buildings in fact can be tipped without disintegration. They are designed such that the major force is always in a single direction, and depend on compression and gravity to hold together. And for that they depend on substantial vertical alignment.

Go past a certain point and they have no strength left and the disarticulated segments just free fall. We clearly see that in the twin towers, too.

WTC-7 was a bit different, but what happened is that the heat from the unfought fires expanded truss members until they pushed key bits out of that substantial vertical alignment and it fell from the inside out.

 

[alienentity]

Damage usually only proceeds in one direction, the path of least resistance. That is not what happened in WTC7(or the towers).

Wrong, that's exactly what happened.

The failure of one steel support column caused every other steel support column to fail within 30 seconds? That interpretation is like an event in a Saturday morning cartoon.

No, your misinterpretation is like a cartoon, but the engineering model proved it using mathematics - and methods which are accepted by mainstream science.

To compare your poorly informed, empty-headed declarations with a professional scientific investigation is not even interesting or necessary. Your views are irrelevant.

You like a good handwave? OK, here's another - you are wrong, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.