NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[kylebisme]

It came a lot closer to falling straight down than it did to mimicking what NIST showed of their model crumpling up. Anyway, on the topic of NIST's WTC 7 model, I recently threw together this video:

 

[TruthersLie]

It came a lot closer to falling straight down than it did to mimicking what NIST showed of their model crumpling up. Anyway, on the topic of NIST's WTC 7 model, I recently threw together this video:

I love truthers.

Key Kyle.

in your own video.. you know the one where you show a CD right next to the WTC7..

where are the massive flashes of light that you see in a CD in WTC7? I dont' see any.

Oh.... here is another one
Where are the massive BANG BANG BANG's that you have in the CD video for WTC7? I don't hear any?

Oh.... here is a third. Where is the collapse of the interior which brings down a part of the CD and the rest stays standing for 8 seconds before collapsing? I don't see it.

Oh... there is a fourth. Why do you continue the videos AFTER the NIST simulation stops? There is no need. If you are trying to actually compare apples to apples, then you stop ALL of the videos where the simulation stops, and then compare.

But we know why you didn't, and why you will continue to spew nonsense, right?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Gravity will cause any sufficiently debilitated structure to collapse. The explosives crap reminds me of people who've watched too much friggin television and thinks everything in the world is as simple.

 

[kylebisme]

where are the massive flashes of light that you see in a CD in WTC7?
...
Where are the massive BANG BANG BANG's that you have in the CD video for WTC7?

It seems much of the removal of WTC 7's redundant support was done earlier in the day, starting as early as before the towers came down, when Barry Jennings first reported being blasted back on the staircase around the eighth floor. As for bangs in the final moments, there were bangs massive enough to get everyone four blocks away to whip their heads towards WTC 7 in this video:



Albeit they're very faint on the recording from the interview mic, and the last bang is caught more clearly in the same video I used for upper middle postion:



As for flashes related to those bangs, I haven't found any video of the lower part of the building where such flashes might be seen durring the final moments.

Where is the collapse of the interior which brings down a part of the CD and the rest stays standing for 8 seconds before collapsing?

I wasn't able to find a CD example that had an interior in the same sense WTC 7 did, so I went with the Landmark because it had the most comprable height from what I've found.

Why do you continue the videos AFTER the NIST simulation stops?

I did that to exemplify the fact that WTC 7 collapsed much like a traditional controlled demolition, and the fact that NIST didn't even come close to proving fire could cause a building to come down anywhere near as quickly or completely as that.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It seems much of the removal of WTC 7's redundant support was done earlier in the day, starting as early as before the towers came down, when Barry Jennings first reported being blasted back on the staircase around the eighth floor.
As for flashes related to those bangs, I haven't found any video of the lower part of the building where such flashes might be seen durring the final moments.
I did that to exemplify the fact that WTC 7 collapsed much like a traditional controlled demolition, and the fact that NIST didn't even came close to proving fire could cause a building to come down anywhere near as quickly or completely as that.

I've made out a your statement about Barry Jennings & the contridition you made about the lower floors having no flashes. Since Barry Jennings was on those lower floors, as you indicated.

Also the word "like" is a simile. You'd have to understand what a simile is before stating that what you think is something like a CD.

I think this solves that little problem.

 

[kylebisme]

I've made out a your statement...

You made a mess out of my statement, wildly misinterpreting it.

 

[triforcharity]

It seems much of the removal of WTC 7's redundant support was done earlier in the day, starting as early as before the towers came down, when Barry Jennings first reported being blasted back on the staircase around the eighth floor. As for bangs in the final moments, there were bangs massive enough to get everyone four blocks away to whip their heads towards WTC 7 in this video:

Sorry, something loud enough to damage the core columns of 7WTC would have been in the 140db range. So loud, that it would have been caught on every single recording device. It is NOT in this video. If it was loud enough to get everyone to turn around, than it should have been loud enough to be picked up on the microphone.

You fail.

Albeit they're very faint on the recording from the interview mic, and the last bang is caught more clearly in the same video I used for upper middle postion:

Still no loud bang.

I did that to exemplify the fact that WTC 7 collapsed much like a traditional controlled demolition, and the fact that NIST didn't even come close to proving fire could cause a building to come down anywhere near as quickly or completely as that.

If you mean to compare to buildings that collapsed, you're correct. Two buildings that collapsed do look alike. HOWEVER, ever single CD that is not using cables or hydraulic rams, makes loud bangs. Lots of them.

NIST did in fact prove that fire can, and will, bring a building down. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make you right.

 

[cmatrix]

Or an alternative is that a sufficient amount of the interior support structure had progressively failed to the point where an entire section was to weak to continue supporting itself. When the columns buckled, their integrity as structural load bearing pieces was completely gone. That happens when this failure mode occurs.



All these "cans, cans, and more cans" but nothing concrete to offer?


From a scientific standpoint you have yet to produce a single technical analysis that would pass a freshmen university level architecture class.

Do tell, why do think a building collapse due to fire is extraordinary? I expect you to provide examples and then explain point by point why your example is an analogue to the WTC. I expect you to do a full building case study using the WTC and a comparable example of your choice, educate this graduate student with all of your study. I assume if you have a good analysis ready this should be no problem for you.

58 perimeter columns cannot buckle simultaneously over eight stories at the exact same locations. That is an exceptionally extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Absolutely no proof for this ridiculous theory has ever ever been presented. Even if this was in fact possible, buckled columns still provide resistance, not none at all. On the other hand it is quite an ordinary claim to say that timed explosives could simultaneously remove eight stories of resisting structure though.

Absolutely no one at all has ever presented a sound technical analysis that fire brought down WTC 7. Yet you believe in this crackpot theory without question. That is faith-based pseudoscience not fact-based science.

 

[cmatrix]

Liar.



Very clearly a request for empirical evidence, except to someone who defines "available" as "not available".

Dave

You stated "Now, let's ignore your strawman argument and get back to what I was actually saying you have no evidence for: an explosive demolition of a building that produces an extended period of freefall. Do you have anything better than YouTube videos? Like, for instance, any actual measurements of the acceleration of a falling building?". Of this statement of yours I stated: "Dave asked for evidence CD could result in free fall." You call me a liar despite the fact that I did not misstate anything. You asked for evidence "anything better than YouTube videos". I provided a common-knowledge fact that shaped charges can slice though support columns. I present a logical proof that shows explosives can be used to makes a building free fall. That is evidence. You did not ask for empirical evidence. So I did not state a falsehood. But by calling me a liar for not stating a falsehood you are in fact stating a falsehood. If anyone is lying it is you.

BTW do you have any sound evidence at all that WTC 7 fell down due to the result of fire? Of course not. Yet you believe in this crackpot theory without question. That is faith-based pseudoscience not fact-based science.

 

[cmatrix]

You need to go back and look at the diagram. You just switched back to your original argument, that it was the lack of lean that proves simultaneous destruction of the supports, not the freefall. You're getting very confused here.

Dave

I'm not the one confused here. Simultaneous destruction of a building's supports will result in no lean and a free fall period. Try to keep up. Your continual mistakes and sloppy reasoning are really starting to bore me.

 

[cmatrix]

Your logic fails here. Instead of winging it I would suggest getting a book which talks about load paths. You especially need to take a lesson on eccentric loading. For all that is sane actually study what you're talking about!!!!

Sorry but spewing jargon that you have no understanding of in a vain attempt to discredit me about only serves to discredit yourself.

 

[cmatrix]

No, it's specified in the description that the building in the thought experiment has had its columns sufficiently fragmented to remove all support, and there are no "massive pieces of unbroken structure". The building is at least 80 feet in the air and has no support, but according to you it cannot be accelerating at 1g because the supports were not removed simultaneously. Describe what is providing the retarding force.

Dave

Hmmm 'there are no "massive pieces of unbroken structure"' despite the fact that the building is broken up into three massive 33M chunks? When the lowest chunk hits the ground it is completely vaporised so as to not offer any resistance to the other two? OK...

9 columns blown 1/4 second from each other. Do the math. Each block will hit the other block or ground before it can ever attain free fall. Another epic debunkster fail.

 

[cmatrix]

Sorry, something loud enough to damage the core columns of 7WTC would have been in the 140db range. So loud, that it would have been caught on every single recording device. It is NOT in this video. If it was loud enough to get everyone to turn around, than it should have been loud enough to be picked up on the microphone.

You fail.




Still no loud bang.



If you mean to compare to buildings that collapsed, you're correct. Two buildings that collapsed do look alike. HOWEVER, ever single CD that is not using cables or hydraulic rams, makes loud bangs. Lots of them.

NIST did in fact prove that fire can, and will, bring a building down. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make you right.

OMG you're really onto something here. There is also no loud bang from a gun with a silencer. So I guess its not really a gun and therefore can't do any damage.

 

[triforcharity]

58 perimeter columns cannot buckle simultaneously over eight stories at the exact same locations.

Strawman. This is not what NIST says happened. You know this, and have had this pointed out to you numerous times. Stop lying.

Even if this was in fact possible, buckled columns still provide resistance, not none at all.

You need to look up the definition of negligable.

On the other hand it is quite an ordinary claim to say that timed explosives could simultaneously remove eight stories of resisting structure though.

Not silently. Not without leaving physical signs on the steel. And not without having the many dogs that were there, not detect them.

Absolutely no one at all has ever presented a sound technical analysis that fire brought down WTC 7. Yet you believe in this crackpot theory without question. That is faith-based pseudoscience not fact-based science.

wtc.nist.gov

You're welcome to prove it wrong. Feel free. Show your work and list any assumptions. JavaMan was attempting to do the same, but we have yet to hear back from him.

Will you be the first?

 

[triforcharity]

OMG you're really onto something here. There is also no loud bang from a gun with a silencer. So I guess its not really a gun and therefore can't do any damage.

Show me a silencer that would make an explosive silent.

Have you ever seen an actual silencer used on a firearm? It's not as silent as in the movies you know.

 

[Justin39640]

OMG you're really onto something here. There is also no loud bang from a gun with a silencer. So I guess its not really a gun and therefore can't do any damage.

That only works if the bullet is subsonic.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There is also no loud bang from a gun with a silencer.

Do us all a favor and keep your movie-based knowledge where it belongs.



The noise is significantly reduced, yes, but you can still clearly make out echos from the suppressed pistol.

But, really... Are you suggesting that there exists a technology capable of suppressing the sound of an explosion, and that it was used on 9/11?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry but spewing jargon that you have no understanding of in a vain attempt to discredit me

Read about it. Visualizing a load path means to understand how the weight of a floor or object is transferred to the ground. It's plainly obvious that while lecturing me of all people you've done absolutely no background research on it. Having joined in this kind of talk you have absolutely no excuse for not having studied it before jumping in. As far as I'm concerned the accusation that I'm posting big words to simply "discredit" you is nothing more than an excuse, you are genuinely unqualified to be telling other people they're wrong, having done nothing on your own time to study.

 

[kylebisme]

Sorry, something loud enough to damage the core columns of 7WTC would have been in the 140db range. So loud, that it would have been caught on every single recording device.

So you proclaim, but the columns were obviously damaged enough for WTC 7 to come down.

If it was loud enough to get everyone to turn around, than it should have been loud enough to be picked up on the microphone.

Again, a sequence of booms were picked up by the interview microphone, albeit very faintly. However, if not those booms, what do you figure caused everyone to turn toward WTC 7 right before it started coming down, a group premonition.

Still no loud bang.

Notably louder than the sound of the building coming down after it.

NIST did in fact prove that fire can, and will, bring a building down.

Again, NIST didn't even come close to proving fire could cause a building to come down anywhere near as quickly or completely WTC 7 did, having only shown their model just start to come down. Get back to me if NIST ever releases their model so everyone can see if it lives up to their claims. Until then, what you are claim as fact is really nothing more than faith.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

anywhere near as quickly or completely

Not one person that has ever made this claim has ever defined what they think a building collapse should have looked like, or how they think the collapse should have progressed. If you have a comparable then by all means name it and justify it... Otherwise people have to assume that the complaint about a perceived deficiency is in essence not relevant.