Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[beachnut]

Dr. Greening does have his own ideas.

And they certainly aren't in agreement with the NIST.

Unlike your delusions which apparently remain in agreement with the NIST.


MM

WTC 7 fell due to fire. You must have a problem with NIST; why do you hate NIST?

You think WTC 7 was blown up; you are delusional on that issue. It is an insane idea supported by you with nothing but your own illusions based on lies.

Don't need NIST. You need NIST so you can complain and spew your delusions for another 8 years of failure.

What did CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, and other new agency tell you about your moronic delusion of CD? What you have not taken action after 8 years! Weak! Failure is all you have.

No substance yet! too bad

 

[TSR]

The fact that WTC 7 fell straight down [and then a little to one side], landing mostly in it's own footprint is enough for most people. A fire cannot possibly do that to a building.

.
But that's not a fact. "Straight down" doesn't damage both the Fiterman Hall and the Verizon Building.
.

 

[excaza]

It is my experience. You can lie and deny all you want, WTC 7 looks like a CD.

Your experience led you to pull that statement out of your rear end?

 

[TexasJack]

And Dr. Quintere has issues with the NIST report too. Does HE also think that 9-11 was NOT perpetrated by 19 Islamic extremists flying planes into buildings?

Here's another person that has issues with the NIST report on 7, but he also says this:

I am chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. I am a practicing tall building engineer. I have written papers on fire induced progressive collapse. I witnessed the collapse of the towers. I participated in the rescue and then the clean up and all the time I was questioning how and why. I was involved in a review of the new GSA standards for progressive collapse. And I worked with Libeskind on his design for Freedom Tower.

and

As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Against this you have the ae911truth movement which has support from approximately 80 licensed structural or civil engineers, who have signed its petition. Now in proportion to the industry the level of support that the 911truth movement is tiny. However I can understand why 80 people did, because the response from government was slow and the one side videos the 911truth movement show are very compelling, if you do not review them critically.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous. However the 911truth movement only provides one side of the argument and any organization that does so is not interested in truth. There are numerous answers to the questions they raise and the overwhelming evidence is that CD played no part in the collapse

.

plus

My main concern is that the debate is that the CD theory is a distraction. 9/11 raises many issues about building performance, terror attacks and how structural steel behaves in extreme fire conditions. These issues need to be properly discussed and debated and every time the conversation starts, then CD takes us wildly of course.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=697314&page=2

Having issues with NIST does not equal some type of CD.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Can somebody update me when we figure out why I should give a damn what it "looks like"? No matter "what" the cause is, a building lost its ability to support itself. I would think people would care about linking cause with effect but these people are too lazy to bother getting past the spontaneous analogies.

 

[Miragememories]

And he doesn't support your delusions either. The difference is that Greening does support NIST's conclusion that fire caused the collapse.

Source please.

MM

 

[Christopher7]

1) You agree that the period at freefall was about 15% of the total collapse time.
Now then, according to both Chandler and NIST, that was roughly 2.25 to 2.5s.

NIST confirmed that FFA lasted ~2.25 seconds, ~100 feet.

Doing the math, it results in a total collapse time of 14 to 15s.
Curtain wall descent = roughly 7s
Freefall accel happened during that interval
Previous interval was 7 to 8s (From the time the East Penthouse descended into the building).

Freefall period was about halfway during the entire collapse. Definitely and conclusively NOT at the start of the collapse, as in a controlled demolition.

we are demanding that you show us another controlled demolition where the freefall acceleration happened about halfway thru it - as opposed to the beginning of it, as we would expect.

No two CDs are the same because each building provides unique situations to deal with and you have no idea why WTC 7 was brought down precisely the way it was.

I was not requesting another assertion that Dan Rather thought so. That is not and example of another CD with the same characteristics. And incidentally when you quotemine Dan Rather, you seem to miss that he said it was 'reminiscent'. I don't think Rather's claim is correctly interpreted as an expert opinion, nor did he claim it actually was a controlled demolition. Be careful you don't put words in his mouth. That wouldn't be honest.

Your strawman rant ignores the point. Dan Rather and Brian Williams thought WTC 7 looked like a CD.

I wrote 'Proof of CD is not just a brief period such as that.'
That means that there are a host of other vital criteria which need to be fulfilled in order for a collapse to be a controlled demolition.

Wrong. FFA is proof of CD. You can deny it all you want and the fanatically faithful here will support you but in the real world outside this forum the obvious physical reality that FFA can only occur if all the supporting structure is removed will be recognized.

 

[alienentity]

NIST confirmed that FFA lasted ~2.25 seconds, ~100 feet.

No two CDs are the same because each building provides unique situations to deal with and you have no idea why WTC 7 was brought down precisely the way it was.


Wrong. FFA is proof of CD. .

So C7 is declining to provide any other real-world example of a CD which had FFA in the middle, but not at the start, of its collapse.

The fact that he has no example to provide means he is stuck with a bare assertion fallacy. He is trying to dodge the obvious lack of evidence.
I rest my case.

His latest bare assertion is that FFA is proof of CD. Again, he provides zero peer-reviewed literature to support his argument.

This, C7, is why your opinions are irrelevant and worthless, and why you will accomplish nothing of value with your pursuit of them. Mark my words, in another 10 years, you will still be chasing phantoms if you don't let go of this delusion.

Your word, your opinion is not good enough to do anything of substance with. You cannot mount a legal case, you cannot convict any alleged perps based on a bare assertion fallacy. If that were the case we'd be back in the middle ages.

 

[Miragememories]

"WTC 7 fell due to fire."

Source please.

"You must have a problem with NIST; why do you hate NIST?"

Your right. I have a problem with organizations whose leadership participate in the coverup of 3,000+ murders.

Apparently you don't.

"You think WTC 7 was blown up; you are delusional on that issue. It is an insane idea supported by you with nothing but your own illusions based on lies."

Show me your qualifications to make such a diagnosis and I'll consider remedial action.

You very confidently go about calling people liars, insane, delusional...

Since you aren't qualified to make such judgements, I can only assume
those opinions come from your own experience coping with such conditions?

"Don't need NIST."

Too funny.

Without that lame NIST WTC 7 Report as a crutch, you have nothing.

"What did CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, and other new agency tell you about your moronic delusion of CD?"

OMG

Now the mainstream media is being cited as a source of credible 9/11 analysis. Well Tea Party on.

Way too funny.

MM

 

[Christopher7]

So C7 is declining to provide any other real-world example of a CD which had FFA in the middle, but not at the start, of its collapse.

You keep ignoring the fact that no two CDs are the same. WTC 7 was a unique situation requiring a unique solution.

His latest bare assertion is that FFA is proof of CD. Again, he provides zero peer-reviewed literature to support his argument.

The conformation of Mr. Chandler's finding of FFA in the NIST report is effectively a peer review. It is an established scientific fact that you cannot dispute so you just deny it.

 

[excaza]

Nobody is disputing there was a period of free fall. It's still not proof of CD.

 

[alienentity]

You keep ignoring the fact that no two CDs are the same. WTC 7 was a unique situation requiring a unique solution.

The conformation of Mr. Chandler's finding of FFA in the NIST report is effectively a peer review. It is an established scientific fact that you cannot dispute so you just deny it.

Nice weasel words. Nobody is disputing the 2.25 seconds of freefall except you - you deny that they occurred in the middle of a collapse, yet they did.

And that has been peer-reviewed.

We're asking you for real-world examples to back up your claim. You cannot.

The onus is on you to back your claims up. The burden of proof is on you to show that freefall = CD.
(Even if it means that the argument is moot - the Towers did not fall at FFA)

You can keep running from the implications of your own claims, but you can't hide.

 

[alienentity]

Nobody is disputing there was a period of free fall. It's still not proof of CD.

Yah, he's just lying and hoping that will suffice. Nice stuff C7.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You very confidently go about calling people liars, insane, delusional...

I go with narcissism^WP which better fits the MO of the movement. Going the extra length to use a forum avatar to falsely personify somebody's' caricature is truly raising the truth movement to the pinnacle of ideological purity.

 

[Christopher7]

Nice weasel words. Nobody is disputing the 2.25 seconds of freefall except you - you deny that they occurred in the middle of a collapse, yet they did.

You are playing with semantics. The "middle" depends on what you are using as a start time. This is just a double talk attempt to ignore the fact that FFA proves CD.

We're asking you for real-world examples to back up your claim. You cannot.

That's because there has not been a CD of another 47 story building to compare it to. This is a typical "ask for what does not exist" denial tactic.

The onus is on you to back your claims up. The burden of proof is on you to show that freefall = CD.

It is axiomatic and has been confirmed by Shyam Sunder. I have posted the quote many times but you just deny it.

 

[alienentity]

You are playing with semantics. The "middle" depends on what you are using as a start time. This is just a double talk attempt to ignore the fact that FFA proves CD.

That's because there has not been a CD of another 47 story building to compare it to. This is a typical "ask for what does not exist" denial tactic.

It is axiomatic and has been confirmed by Shyam Sunder. I have posted the quote many times but you just deny it.

The collapse started when the support under the East PH failed. This is a simple fact. It is not semantics at all. Are you denying that the collapse started at that point?
If so, cite your evidence that the building was not internally collapsing. Please don't resort to semantic arguments, rather provide engineering and physics arguments.


Nobody has asked you to use a 47 story building as an example. In fact you know that doesn't exist.

Hmm, again it undermines your argument that you have any real-world evidence. But setting that aside, you are still evading the burden of proof with a handwave 'no two cd's are alike'.

So is your claim, as it stands, that there is no reference in the entire history of controlled demolition which can be used to support your theory?

If not, you must provide such a reference, or admit you cannot provide it. Otherwise you are being very dishonest, and frankly, you're using semantics to evade the question. I think I know what your answer is going to be...

 

[Miragememories]

I go with narcissism^WP which better fits the MO of the movement. Going the extra length to use a forum avatar to falsely personify somebody's' caricature is truly raising the truth movement to the pinnacle of ideological purity.

I have no idea what language you are speaking or what your intended meaning is?

Of course that may be your intent?

MM

 

[Christopher7]

The collapse started when the support under the East PH failed. This is a simple fact. It is not semantics at all. Are you denying that the collapse started at that point?
If so, cite your evidence that the building was not internally collapsing. Please don't resort to semantic arguments, rather provide engineering and physics arguments.


Nobody has asked you to use a 47 story building as an example. In fact you know that doesn't exist.

Hmm, again it undermines your argument that you have any real-world evidence. But setting that aside, you are still evading the burden of proof with a handwave 'no two cd's are alike'.

So is your claim, as it stands, that there is no reference in the entire history of controlled demolition which can be used to support your theory?

If not, you must provide such a reference, or admit you cannot provide it. Otherwise you are being very dishonest, and frankly, you're using semantics to evade the question. I think I know what your answer is going to be...

Yada, yada, yada. WTC 7 looks like a CD. All the double talk, childish insults and stupid questions do not change that.

 

[Miragememories]

The collapse started when the support under the East PH failed. This is a simple fact. It is not semantics at all. Are you denying that the collapse started at that point?
If so, cite your evidence that the building was not internally collapsing. Please don't resort to semantic arguments, rather provide engineering and physics arguments.


Nobody has asked you to use a 47 story building as an example. In fact you know that doesn't exist.

Hmm, again it undermines your argument that you have any real-world evidence. But setting that aside, you are still evading the burden of proof with a handwave 'no two cd's are alike'.

So is your claim, as it stands, that there is no reference in the entire history of controlled demolition which can be used to support your theory?

If not, you must provide such a reference, or admit you cannot provide it. Otherwise you are being very dishonest, and frankly, you're using semantics to evade the question. I think I know what your answer is going to be...

I know you are only puppeting what you glean from those who understand the principles alienentity, so I'll try and keep this simple.

The East Penthouse collapse was the first indication of the imminent total building collapse and was a few seconds out-of-sync with the rest of the demolition.

Several seconds later, there was a complete core failure on the lower floors of WTC7 which resulted in the total implosion of WTC7.

The NIST tried to explain it away with the failure of column 79, but as Dr. Greening so nicely explained, the NIST failed to establish the necessary fire conditions to make their theory viable.

MM

 

[alienentity]

It seems that C7's rather clumsy mental gymnastics have left him in this corner:

He cannot provide a single reference in the entire history of controlled demolition to support his claim that freefall = CD.

He is in the process of attempting to obfuscate about the collapse initiation of WTC7 in order to avoid the implications. But the facts cannot be changed - the collapse began internally about 8 seconds before the parapet wall began to fall.
The period of freefall took place after this point, not before.

His reliance on circular reasoning is his downfall, based on a subtle yet deliberate misstating of this axiom: a period of freefall = removal of support
Dr. Sunder stated the axiom thus.

C7 misstates this as 'a period of freefall = controlled demolition' and wrongly attributes it to Sunder. So he's actually committing two false statements in one.

Yes, support was removed. We know that. The NIST report gives a full accounting of exactly how that probably happened.

It is still not proof of CD. You have not yet met the burden of proof for your claims.