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

[Miragememories]

Common sense is neither common and it rarely make sense. It simply is irrelevant in subjects this complex. That why people like you do not get jobs at NIST. To do that you require an education in the appropriate disciplines. The stuff (engineering) is hard which is why we get paid so well.

Yeah, yeah.

I get it.

You strictly avoid common sense, and believe me it oh so shows.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

MM, what if someone you knew told you something (not 9/11 related) that you knew for a fact based on your background/education/experience was wrong and they claimed they HAD to be right because it was "common sense"? Would you attempt to convince them that they were wrong, or would you just laugh and go on your way?

So sylvan you prefer hypothetical fantasy scenarios without any real example to something that might have a basis in reality?

Well I hate to disappoint you but if you are going to pose a scenario, you need to describe it.

Otherwise you are asking me to give a reply to an imaginary question that could be anything but you don't know what.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"They dumped peoples bodies along with evidence from a major crime scene in a landfill?"

"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."

Wow. One thousand FBI agents. No that is wrong. Dave says "over one thousand FBI agents".

But not one of them was doing the necessary forensic research for signs of explosive activity.

If they saw a timing device, some sticks of dynamite, unexploded RDX charges, that sort of thing, they would have gone "hmm." After all, these are trained professionals. They won't ignore obvious evidence of explosive devices, They are trained to go "hmm".

Dr. Harrit et al have demonstrated proof of explosive materials in the dust, nanothermite.

So I guess the FBI agents who were examining the the debris with microscopes and DSC technology would have confirmed Dr. Harrit et al's findings.

But damn, they were not looking. Like the Official Story dictated, the FBI were assuming/supporting the myth that all the important questions had been answered.

It was all Al Qaeda all the time.

It does make it easier to sleep at night.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

You don't examine with incredulity what happened to WTC7, but instead make your judgement based on the incredulity of why it happened to WTC7.

MM

Let this sink in:

WTC 7 is irrelevant.
WTC 7 is nothing more than a casualty of the events in NYC, exactly like many other buildings were.
WTC 7 is irrelevant.

Yeah, yeah thermal expansion..on all 3 WTC towers no less, who knew?

So sylvan you prefer hypothetical fantasy scenarios without any real example to something that might have a basis in reality?

Controlled demo in NYC on 9/11 is the very definition of hypothetical fantasy scenario.
3 towers?
You need to do a bit more researching.

But not one of them was doing the necessary forensic research for signs of explosive activity.

There was absolutely no reason for them to. None. They also weren't tasked with finding the boxcutters the terrorists used either. They weren't told to search for Jimmy Hoffa, weren't there to protect a foreign dignitary, weren't looking for the Loch Ness Monster.....

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Maybe I didn't read back to the beginning of the argument in that case. I can't see any problem with that reasoning."

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."[/i]

"(2) can be very quickly rejected because there were no sufficiently loud noises recorded or reported at the appropriate time to initiate a collapse."

This is false. As you are well aware Dave, there were numerous reports of explosions and it was quite evident that the soundscape for 9/11 was overall poorly recorded.

Start here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EyqImTdks

Okay, I know you won't Dave, but anyone who has a sincere interest should.

"(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."

Now this statement is kinda funny given you Official Story supporters get on our case when we point out how concrete and steel office towers have no precedent for a collapse due to fire.

A very plausible cause for the collapse of WTC7 has been presented but people like yourself Dave are too afraid to given it the consideration it merits. Nanothermite can be tailored to perform what is required and evidence of its existence throughout the WTC debris has been well documented.

"(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."

This is absolutely not true, unless you consider the facts to be what remains, when all the likely contenders have been deliberately removed from the equation.

You say that the "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", but in an earlier post when it suited your bigotry, argument, you said the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, was; "...far beyond reasonable doubt to have been entirely unexpected..."

You know damn well that such an event was shocking and unprecedented, or do you wish to stand by your current hypocritical stance?

The scientific proof isn't there.

The NIST collapse scenario is an absurd theory dependent on denying what is structurally required for 2.5 seconds of total freefall, and the exclusion of freely available, logical proof for controlled demolition, nanothermite.

How you sleep at night Dave, when you are knowingly doing your best to coverup the un-resolved murder of over 3,000 innocent people is beyond my imagining?

Does your blinding incredulity about why WTC7 was deliberately demolished, really run that deep?

MM

 

[NoahFence]

LOL!!

Oh, do tell. Why was WTC 7 demolished?

And why didn't they just do that? Why WTCs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Pentagon, why the plane that was no doubt headed for the Capitol Building?

Why, oh possessor of eternal knowledge, did they have to go that overboard?

My million dollar prediction:

You won't say why.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Chandler does what every conspirator does... he tries to link every witness account to the use of an explosive device, when the reports themselves do not inherently prove anything; especially given that there are numerous plausible explanations for explosions that require no explosives to be magically planted/survive a fire. And in doing so, he actually disproves his own case with his own analysis that was intended to prove there were explosive blasts detonating.

heh...

 

[BenBurch]

Can you define "key bits" in regard to the NIST report so i can try to find it?

Isn't it unlikely that anything from the load bearding columns would be significantly pushed when they are the main supports for the building, the main force from thermal expansion of trusses I would have thought would push outwards from the main support columns, using their structural strength to expand into more external areas with less structural strength.

Sure!

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

All laid out there.

Don't think of the building like a normal lattice building. It was a very weird cantilevered structure because it was built on, around and over an existing building.

 

[Miragememories]

"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"

Which begs the question <snip>, Grizzly Bear, why do you not practice what you preach?

I attempted a dialogue with you about WTC7 and all you did was retreat to your NIST mantra.

When confronted by NIST errors and omissions, rather than think for yourself, you resorted to a faith-based argument. For you and the other NIST faithful, if the NIST didn't explain it, or made errors, then they merely overlooked stuff, but regardless of anything the NIST did wrong, their theory was inviolate.

"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."

"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."

There is no getting around the fact that there is no pile of bs too big for you to shovel <snip>, Grizzly Bear.

Taking special note of the similar, unprecedented, relationship between 3 major office tower collapses, all occurring on the same day and location, is not "asinine to logic", as you ignorantly put it <snip>, Grizzly Bear.

It is a very realistic consideration of extreme improbabilities, and consequently a proper de-emphasis on explanations that are extremely unlikely.

In other words, look for a more probable explanation when the official one is highly improbable.

Your whole approach to understanding the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7, is asinine and illogical.

MM

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Uncivil changes to another poster's username have been removed.

 

[BenBurch]

[qimg]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/TGmEO9J9q2I/AAAAAAAAiA0/brznFOhwXhE/s400/2-409b.jpg[/qimg]

That's just from the sun.

...

Sun kinks are the devil. And you haven't lived until you have been standing 4 feet from the track when one of those suddenly forms.

 

[ProBonoShill]

"(2) can be very quickly rejected because there were no sufficiently loud noises recorded or reported at the appropriate time to initiate a collapse."

This is false. As you are well aware Dave, there were numerous reports of explosions and it was quite evident that the soundscape for 9/11 was overall poorly recorded.

Start here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EyqImTdks

Okay, I know you won't Dave, but anyone who has a sincere interest should.

"(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."

Now this statement is kinda funny given you Official Story supporters get on our case when we point out how concrete and steel office towers have no precedent for a collapse due to fire.

A very plausible cause for the collapse of WTC7 has been presented but people like yourself Dave are too afraid to given it the consideration it merits. Nanothermite can be tailored to perform what is required and evidence of its existence throughout the WTC debris has been well documented.

"(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."

This is absolutely not true, unless you consider the facts to be what remains, when all the likely contenders have been deliberately removed from the equation.

You say that the "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", but in an earlier post when it suited your bigotry, argument, you said the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, was; "...far beyond reasonable doubt to have been entirely unexpected..."

You know damn well that such an event was shocking and unprecedented, or do you wish to stand by your current hypocritical stance?

The scientific proof isn't there.

The NIST collapse scenario is an absurd theory dependent on denying what is structurally required for 2.5 seconds of total freefall, and the exclusion of freely available, logical proof for controlled demolition, nanothermite.

How you sleep at night Dave, when you are knowingly doing your best to coverup the un-resolved murder of over 3,000 innocent people is beyond my imagining?

Does your blinding incredulity about why WTC7 was deliberately demolished, really run that deep?

MM

Let's see:

NIST

or

MM's word salad with zero evidence.



Tough call, but I'm going with NIST.

 

[Dog Town]

How you sleep at night Dave, when you are knowingly doing your best to coverup the un-resolved murder of over 3,000 innocent people is beyond my imagining?

WOWEE!

 

[BenBurch]

...
But not one of them was doing the necessary forensic research for signs of explosive activity.

...

Because no rational, educated person believed explosives were involved.

It was bloody obvious why wtc 1 and 2 fell. wtc 7 was a puzzle, but it burned for HOURS and was seen to be significantly leaning, and so no explosives were likely there, either.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I'd like some of what you are smoking.

MM

Why? your supply does not seem to have run out.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yeah, yeah.

I get it.

You strictly avoid common sense, and believe me it oh so shows.

MM

Thank you.
You have to love it when twoofers compliment you and probably have no clue that they are doing it.
Any bets on when MM will grasp that "common sense" has little relevance in high energy impacts and out of control fires? I'm guessing never.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Aircraft impacts built into the design of the buildings.

Stop lying. you know fine aircraft impacts were not considered until after the design was complete and then in only a very cursory manner. Show proof otherwise or retract.

Yeah yeah, I hear the rebuttal cut 'n pasting in the background, but that has been argued ad nauseam before. The Official Story supporters incredibly dumb argument that, yes the structural engineers planned for a Boeing 707 impact but, duh, it never occurred to them to consider that the aviation fuel might catch fire.

They did not make any planning for impact, merely calculated that it would survive being hit by a 707 at 180kts. It never occurred to anyone questioning the new building and if it occurred to the designers they kept quiet about it then and later. Why? because they were trying to sell a building project and considered such a thing as very unlikely or they knew it would likely fail and knew that making this public might scupper the whole project........doesn't really matter which as there is no evidence that a large scale fuel fire was ever considered so all you have is yet another unsupported allegation. Its easy to be smart in hindsight but in your case its the only way you are ever going to be anything other than dumb.

 

[A W Smith]

Oh Look what thermite makes!

They clearly did not have any gaps in that track at all to deform by that much.

welded continuous rail. ever hear of it? I'm thinking you have.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[

Wow. One thousand FBI agents. No that is wrong. Dave says "over one thousand FBI agents".

But not one of them was doing the necessary forensic research for signs of explosive activity.

How necessery??? there was not the remotest chance explosives were used.

If they saw a timing device, some sticks of dynamite, unexploded RDX charges, that sort of thing, they would have gone "hmm." After all, these are trained professionals. They won't ignore obvious evidence of explosive devices, They are trained to go "hmm".

No they wouldn't have so QED there were none.

Dr. Harrit et al have demonstrated proof of explosive materials in the dust, nanothermite.

Another lie. They did no such thing. If anything can be taken from their "work" its that it was NOT thermite.

So I guess the FBI agents who were examining the the debris with microscopes and DSC technology would have confirmed Dr. Harrit et al's findings.

Yep, they would have found paint chips, and perhaps did and being actually skilled in their fields actually recognised them as such.

But damn, they were not looking. Like the Official Story dictated, the FBI were assuming/supporting the myth that all the important questions had been answered.

But you just said above they found none of the other prerequisites for the use of explosives.....you know ...timing devices, ingiters, shock cord etc etc so why would they look for thermite if there was no evidence that it could have been used?

It was all Al Qaeda all the time.

wasn't difficult to know that....they had video of Al Qaeda guys getting on the Planes and they were they were the #1 terrorist threat at the time.

It does make it easier to sleep at night.

Never had problems before or after 911.....but then I'm not paranoid like you.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You know damn well that such an event was shocking and unprecedented

It certainly was unprecideneted and I think everyone found 911 shocking so wahst you point? Surely you are not making the silly "first time ever" fallacy?

The scientific proof isn't there.

Well firstly you wouldn't know if it was or wasn't as you simply are too ignorant to have a worthwhile opinion either way and secondly all the scientific evidence points clearly at impact and fire and zero points elsewhere.

One has to wonder why you keep lying so much?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Which begs the question Grizzly Bear, why do you not practice what you preach?

I practiced what I preached here quite well I believe when I used my experience in doing building case studies to explain to you that exacting a cause to an engineering disaster isn't about insane improbability. The circumstances surrounding their collapses are themselves statistically rare, yet they happened. Engineering investigations seek to ensure that the human neglect doesn't contribute to events that fall beyond design limitations.

I attempted a dialogue with you about WTC7 and all you did was retreat to your NIST mantra.

I used a combination of my experience, education, and the NIST, where relevant to our discussion. I believe it is you that retreated to the NIST bashing despite many of my remarks having nothing to do with it.

When confronted by NIST errors and omissions, rather than think for yourself, you resorted to a faith-based argument. For you and the other NIST faithful, if the NIST didn't explain it, or made errors, then they merely overlooked stuff, but regardless of anything the NIST did wrong, their theory was inviolate.

As I explained to you in this very post and in greater detail here you pointed out standard edits in a document which if you've ever done a thesis of your own should have been a dead-ringer. Demonstrating that you cannot read the report functionally isn't exactly productive in our exchange MM.

Taking special note of the similar, unprecedented, relationship between 3 major office tower collapses, all occurring on the same day and location, is not "asinine to logic", as you ignorantly put it, Grizzly Bear.

Indeed, taking note of their rarity isn't "asinine to logic."

It's your insistence that the collapse of the WTC, involving very specific structural conditions and unprecedentedly violent circumstances matches to a "T" the circumstances of every building you claim models them that's absolutely asinine to logic.

I said, to draw any particular relationship between how many buildings collapsed and their respective causes runs completely asinine to logic, because buildings built differently and damaged differently will behave differently. You've never even a attempted thorough research, and it shows; you have some cahoots calling my arguments BS considering your understanding of design analysis is an extreme perversion.

Your whole approach to understanding the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7, is asinine and illogical.

As far as I'm concerned, with you lacking a proper understanding of even extremely basic design concepts, you're arguments are the very definition of illogical. But that's never stopped the TM from demonstrating their highly perverted interpretations of professional practice, so I'm thunderously underwhelmed by your critique.