NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[triforcharity]

When will you be submitting your paper showing NIST right to a respectable, properly peer-reviewed journal?

You do know that looking at a skeletal model showing just the steel allows you to basically see what is happening on the other sides, right?

I was talking about the ones that Femr2's video compared the NIST model.

The NIST report on 7WTC is supported by dozens of peer-reviewed papers.

Seen those before? I can give you a list if you would like.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's see just how far you are prepared to twist reality to fit your delusions. Notice I said "lean over". In your CD scenario, the building tips over like a tree falling. This is very different behavior that what we see in WTC 7, a roll within its footprint. Something that curls in on itself is a roll not a lean. Then you actually have the audacity to claim that I believe "a building can roll while remaining upright" simply because I recognize this glaring distinction of the two different types of behavior. Spock must be turning in his grave.

Unlikely, since he's a fictional character. But if your understanding of science is based on the teachings of Star Trek, that explains a lot.

Perhaps you'd like to offer some sketches, showing the difference between a roll and a tilt. In particular, I'd like to see a sketch showing how a building nearly twice as high as it is long, and more than four times as high as it is wide, can roll over within its footprint.

A simultaneous eight story buckle of all 58 perimeter columns of WTC 7 was in fact impossible.

Hi there, Mr. Strawman. We've missed you.

Remember, you admitted that the failures didn't have to be simultaneous. Try to keep track of your own beliefs, or I may have to remind you of them again.

The floors were not more or less gone before the free fall. The remaining core columns had to have been supporting the floors. Otherwise the floors would have pulled down causing deformations to the exterior.

We know that the entire roofline of the building, including both mechanical penthouses and the screenwall, had already collapsed before the exterior moved. Since the interior collapse commenced low down in the building, that means that there was virtually nothing of the interier left intact when the facade began to collapse.

But by all means post your evidence that there was no deformation to the exterior in the lower floors in the 4-6 seconds from the first observable descent of the roof structures to the first observable movement of the facade. I seem to remember that there is no video or photographs of the lower floors available during that period, but you may have a video that the rest of the world hasn't seen. If you haven't, then try to stick to the evidence we have rather than making up the evidence you want.

There is however no movement besides the roof bow seen on the exterior prior to free fall.

Apart from 0.7 seconds of drop of the entire facade, which you seem to be finding a little too inconvenient to remember.

To cause the bow these remaining core columns therefore had to have been removed a fraction of a second before the free fall. More likely the bow was caused by blowing the remaining core columns and the middle perimeter columns at the same time.

It's perfectly clear from the behaviour of the mechanical penthouses and the screenwall that the core column collapse progressed from west to east and preceded the facade collapse.

You have not in any way shown that the column failures could have been non-simultaneous.

It's also perfectly clear from the kink in the south face that the perimeter column failures progressed laterally both ways from near the centre, so it's a direct observation that the column failures were non-simultaneous.

Since during free fall all the four corners descended at the same rate (i.e. the building was moving straight down with no roll) the failures in fact had to be simultaneous.

So you think it fell perfectly level, then started to tilt later? Where do you imagine it acquired the angular momentum?

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

I was talking about the ones that Femr2's video compared the NIST model.

The NIST report on 7WTC is supported by dozens of peer-reviewed papers.

Seen those before? I can give you a list if you would like.

Sure I'd love to see them. I'm sure none of them can explain the free fall period.

 

[cmatrix]

Unlikely, since he's a fictional character. But if your understanding of science is based on the teachings of Star Trek, that explains a lot.

Perhaps you'd like to offer some sketches, showing the difference between a roll and a tilt. In particular, I'd like to see a sketch showing how a building nearly twice as high as it is long, and more than four times as high as it is wide, can roll over within its footprint.



Hi there, Mr. Strawman. We've missed you.

Remember, you admitted that the failures didn't have to be simultaneous. Try to keep track of your own beliefs, or I may have to remind you of them again.



We know that the entire roofline of the building, including both mechanical penthouses and the screenwall, had already collapsed before the exterior moved. Since the interior collapse commenced low down in the building, that means that there was virtually nothing of the interier left intact when the facade began to collapse.

But by all means post your evidence that there was no deformation to the exterior in the lower floors in the 4-6 seconds from the first observable descent of the roof structures to the first observable movement of the facade. I seem to remember that there is no video or photographs of the lower floors available during that period, but you may have a video that the rest of the world hasn't seen. If you haven't, then try to stick to the evidence we have rather than making up the evidence you want.



Apart from 0.7 seconds of drop of the entire facade, which you seem to be finding a little too inconvenient to remember.



It's perfectly clear from the behaviour of the mechanical penthouses and the screenwall that the core column collapse progressed from west to east and preceded the facade collapse.



It's also perfectly clear from the kink in the south face that the perimeter column failures progressed laterally both ways from near the centre, so it's a direct observation that the column failures were non-simultaneous.



So you think it fell perfectly level, then started to tilt later? Where do you imagine it acquired the angular momentum?

Dave

If you doubt that a building like WTC 7 can roll within its own footprint just look at the video of WTC 7 doing just that. If you believe it tipped over like a tree feel to present a video of it doing that. But we all know it doesn't exist.

Again the only strawman has been created by you. I have stated it is possible for building columns to be removed non-simultaneously. I have never stated that it was possible for the WTC 7 perimeter columns to be removed non-simultaneously (with the possible exception of the middle columns) to enable the free fall period. This is in fact a straw man that you have created.

The WTC 7 roof did not collapse, it bowed. A bow means the horizontal structure is intact but the vertical structure is lessened. To cause this lessening the center columns could have been removed or just compressed. We'd know either way if the evidence was not destroyed or otherwise made unavailable. To a real competent skeptic, evidence destruction and withholding is a sign of a cover-up not the truth. Indeed, someone who unquestioningly believes in a theory that involves the ignoring of evidence is an unscientific crackpot.

If all floors were gone there would be deformation along the whole side of the building not just a few lower floors. Look at the pictures that are available. Do you see such deformation? No of course not. As usual you have no evidence to support your zany beliefs.

The 0.7 seconds of drop of the "entire facade"? How long did the bow take to form? About 0.7 seconds? Funny, NIST chose the center of the roofline for their measurements instead of a corner. I guess that's all irrelevant.

The fact that the mechanical penthouses and the screenwall dropped shows that some core columns were taken out. That doesn't mean they all were. Again, the intact albeit bowed roof and lack of side deformations shows that the floors were still supported till right before free fall.

During the free fall period all the four corners descended at the same rate (i.e. the building was moving straight down with no roll) that means that all the remaining columns that were holding up the building till then were all removed simultaneously. All you need to do to disprove that is show that all the corners had different accelerations. Good luck.

To cause the roll inside the footprint would require an intricate precisely timed removal of resisting support such that support was removed faster from the south side and support removal was consistently graduated slower to the north. So the south side is falling quickly but there is graduated resistance to the north. Here support removal was non-simultaneous but intricately precise. This intricate precisely timed behavior is impossible in a natural collapse but is a piece of cake for CD with explosives.

 

[Edx]

As usual you have no evidence to support your zany beliefs.

LOL yea quiet intense explosives are not zany at all.

 

[cmatrix]

LOL yea quiet intense explosives are not zany at all.

Such pathetically edited hit pieces are the extent your side can muster. Our side sticks to the science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

 

[Dave Rogers]

Since it's clear that cmatrix is basing his understanding, not on the actual events of WTC7's collapse, but on a fictitious narrative he's fabricated himself, I don't see much point in discussing it any further.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Since it's clear that cmatrix is basing his understanding, not on the actual events of WTC7's collapse, but on a fictitious narrative he's fabricated himself, I don't see much point in discussing it any further.

Dave

Translation: "Since I can't in any way respond maturely and intelligently to cmatrix's abject demolition of my pitiful arguments I'll just pronounce that he's lying and run away with my tail between my legs hoping no one will notice."

 

[excaza]

CM commenting on maturity and intelligence.

wow...

 

[George 152]

CM commenting on maturity and intelligence.

wow...

He knows what they are, he's read a book about them..
A pity he hasn't picked up a science text book and done the same thing with that

 

[Edx]

Such pathetically edited hit pieces are the extent your side can muster. Our side sticks to the science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

1. Pay attention, my video is referring to WTC1+2 when all this steel flinging and pulverising is meant to be occurring, remember? As is shown in my video Gage claims that thermite is both an intense and quiet explosive. He wants to claim this because he wants to claim the building was pulverised and heavy steel was propelled by intense explosives away from the building, its just more exciting I guess.

However when questioned about how loud this would be he says thats why they would have used thermite/thermate because that's "quiet". No kind of thermite is an explosive, but if it was and was such a intensely high explosive that Gage's claims demand, then this too would be just as loud. Its the blast wave that would propel matter. The blast wave IS sound, which is why it would go boom. Got it? So, Gage claims they used quiet yet intensive explosives, which is completely contradictory which is why it is mocked.

You really going to defend that notion? Or will you actually admit this is nonsense?

2. In reference to WTC7.... your video you posted contains absolutely no explosion sounds in any footage when the building collapses. The video with the firefighters turning round happened around 7 hours before the collapse. Werent you claiming that the entire 8 stories were destroyed simultaneously? Was the bomb in slow motion? Was it able to send the sound back in time? If it was a premature explosive going off, why cant we hear any of them going off when the actual demolition occurs? If they used Gage's hush-bombs for the main event, why did they also add a few normal explosives?

Regarding witness', there is also only 1 testimony to a relevant explosion and thats Craig Bartmer but isnt backed up by ANY video' evidence or ANYONE else at the scene. And no, Kevin McPadden's "countdown" is even more ridiculous, he is a truther and only started talking about this stuff years after and his story has wildly changed over the years. Notice how he claims huge explosions in the collapse, "BA BOOM! BA BOOM!" he says, except this just proves he is lying since that certainly would be caught on tape which it wasnt. He is too stupid to make stuff up that fits with what we know.

If you want to cherry pick witness' why not explain why no firefighters on 911 had any issue with the collapse of WTC7 and why none of them agree with a single contention truthers make about it? They knew hours before it collapsed that it was going to and by the end were just waiting around for it to happen. Why dont they back up anything you claim about it? We have plenty of firefighters that went on record recanting their experiences about WTC7, is it any wonder why truthers NEVER quote any of it?

3. If you want to claim huge loud explosions, which is what this video you posted claims happened. Then why did they use Gage's hush-o-bombs on WTC1+2 and use loud explosives on WTC7? This is just a rhetorical question, since I've already argued that there were obviously no loud explosions when WTC7 collapsed. I ask it because you're just wrong in every way I can fathom.

At the end of the day, none of you guys can make up your minds if your demolition fantasy was loud or quiet and none of you apparently realise how stupid that makes you look.

 

[Edx]

Bump for cmatrix View Post to defend his video above.

 

[kylebisme]

Gage claims that thermite is both an intense and quiet explosive.

Rather, his saying thermite can be used in both incendiaries and explosives, and the evidence suggests both were used to accomplish the demolitions as quietly as possible.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Our side sticks to the science.

What do you know of science? You Truthers can't even prove any of your theories with the science that you have.

Take the dust samples for example, they were contaminated over the 8 yrs. they were exposed to the elements by an unknown Truther. The Truther might've added a chemical to trick the electron-microscope into thinking that there was "thermite" present in the dust. Thus lying to make the 9/11 TM look "professional". Sorry, but we can cut to the chase here, you Truthers are a bunch of fraudulant liars.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Rather, his saying thermite can be used in both incendiaries and explosives, and the evidence suggests both were used to accomplish the demolitions as quietly as possible.

Wrong! Thermite is a welding tool that was used to join railroad rails together in Britian.

Thermite grenades (if you read history correctly) are non-explosive & work in the same principles of the welding technique. Soldiers would drop the thermite grenades into the artillery's barrels, after which the thermite would weld the breech to the barrel rendering the artillery piece useless.

So what's that about it being "explosive"?

 

[kylebisme]

I didn't claim thermite in itself is explosive, but rather simply mentioned the fact can be used in explosives. For more information on the matter, see here.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I didn't claim thermite in itself is explosive, but rather simply mentioned the fact can be used in explosives. For more information on the matter, see here.

So basically nano-thermite is just an additive to an explosive so that the explosive wouldn't be a dud & fail to go off. Ok, that makes perfect sense. But what does this have to prove it being used on 9/11?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Well I've said before, indeed you might well solve the noise problem with a little bit of thermite, but then you have fire works display about as bright as the sun that will render anyone looking at it without protection with temporary or permanent vision loss/blindness. Neither explosives, nor thermite are subtle in the least.

 

[kylebisme]

So basically nano-thermite is just an additive to an explosive so that the explosive wouldn't be a dud & fail to go off.

No, it's a highly exothermic compound which can be used for many purposes, including as a base for explosives in which various organics are added to manipulate characteristics of the resulting explosion, like the stuff found in the WTC dust.

Well I've said before, indeed you might well solve the noise problem with a little bit of thermite, but then you have fire works display about as bright as the sun that will render anyone looking at it .

Except nobody could see the cores, at least not until the rest of the towers had come down around them, and by that time they were smoldering ghosts of their former selves. And of course there are many witness reports and some recordings of explosions, both before the buildings came down and while they did.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Except nobody could see the cores, at least not until the rest of the towers had come down around them, and by that time they were smoldering ghosts of their former selves. And of course there are many witness reports and some recordings of explosions, both before the buildings came down and while they did

Except during the entire time those buildings were occupied, during evacuations, not a single person reports seeing any instance of "thermite." Firefighters reaching the impact zone of the south tower reported nothing of the sort, the chief engineer who was in the same vicinity reported nothing of the sort. Nobody did. The one visual element that you guys latch onto like a godsend that "proves" thermite isn't even that bright.

As for witnesses. Give me a compelling reason why any explosions during the entire event couldn't be combustible materials. No, actually you won't, instead you'll continue to ramble on about how it can only be explosives. Just like simile is non-existent in literature, just like metaphor is never used.

Like I said, neither explosives nor thermite are subtle, and you would have everyone believe that they were used inside occupied buildings, and discharging in occupied spaces. Forget about asking how they got them in, you're dealing with people who would have seen it happening first hand. You would have much more than routine reports of explosions and vague speculation to bring to the table if you had a case