• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
gerrycan said:
NIST, having been informed of the impossibility of their proposed initiating event, and their errors in misrepresenting the elements of the building have conspired not to be truthful and open about the demise of this building.
Click to expand...

Doesn't meet any sensible definition of the term "conspiracy theory", in that there is no secret behaviour going on. You'll find discussions of government departments failing to respond to honest criticism in USA Politics; perhaps you'd like to take the criticism of NIST's behaviour there. Meanwhile, it's not the mechanics of the conspiracy you're discussing, so this discussion of structural engineering matters seems very much off-topic for the forum. Unless, of course, you're simply trying to peddle the usual insane 9/11 inside job theories by stealth but don't want to be associated with them because you know just how little intellectual respectability that will leave you.

So, your choice; have your cake, or eat it? You can't do both, as by staying here you make your beliefs just as apparent as if you state them.

Dave
 
gerrycan said:
Yes, they did not say that they believe that there was a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but they didn't stop at "not saying". This is what they DID say:

"The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 `truth movement' and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 `truth movement' presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings."
​
http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx

And while on it, they also DID say:

"The Council has several technical questions about details of the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns resulting in global failure."
​

So why are you bringing up the CTBUH if they expressly reject any controlled demolition claim and expressly say that they don't expect the overall conclusions of the report to change?

That's what you don't get: the nitpicks on the technical details don't change the overall conclusions of the report, no matter how much you insist.
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
Indeed, but they didn't stop at "not saying". This is what they DID say:

"The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 `truth movement' and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 `truth movement' presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings."
​
http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx

And while on it, they also DID say:

"The Council has several technical questions about details of the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns resulting in global failure."
​

So why are you bringing up the CTBUH if they expressly reject any controlled demolition claim and expressly say that they don't expect the overall conclusions of the report to change?

That's what you don't get: the nitpicks on the technical details don't change the overall conclusions of the report, no matter how much you insist.
Click to expand...
At the time of the above statement the drawings for the buildings had not been released and nobody had a drawing that confirmed the presence of the stiffener plates and the other omissions. Given the type of contracts that the members of the CTBUH are involved with, I am not surprised that they don't want to ruffle feathers.
It actually surprised me that they went as far as they did.
They are pretty sharp for sure to have noticed the stiffener plate issue without having access to the structural drawings. That impressed me. You don't.
 
gerrycan said:
pgimeno said:
<snip>

That's what you don't get: the nitpicks on the technical details don't change the overall conclusions of the report, no matter how much you insist.
Click to expand...
At the time of the above statement the drawings for the buildings had not been released and nobody had a drawing that confirmed the presence of the stiffener plates and the other omissions.
Click to expand...
And there you go again. Let me put it in bold for you: The plates would not have made a difference on the report's overall conclusions.
 
LSSBB said:
Oy, I look at it this way. I participated in the Holocaust Denial thread, and watched Nick Terry take on a denier named saggy. Saggy would ask Nick to name "Just one witness to the gas chambers". Nick refused to engage. Why? Because it was all a game by saggy to win converts and drag out the rhetoric. He would say in recruitering converts that Nick "Couldn't name one witness to the gas chambers", and yet whenever anyone else stepped in and named someone, saggy or Clayton or whoever on the denier side would find some nitpicky flaw with the witness and trump that up.

The point by the conspiracist is to narrow the argument down to one point they think they can hold out on, and drag that out for whatever it is worth. They will brush off or refuse to address questions to their very premise.
Click to expand...

I don't get this. Either there are witnesses to the gas chambers that can be named, then name them; or there aren't, then say "there aren't". The overall conclusion about the reality of gas chambers, I am certain, does not stand or fall with this one question, and someone as knowledgeable, intelligent and well-spoken as Nick Terry can argue it even while admitting a minor gap in the picture.

I fear that you are actually giving the deniers a big win when you dance around a reality. It makes you look like you are the denier!
 
gerrycan said:
At the time of the above statement the drawings for the buildings had not been released and nobody had a drawing that confirmed the presence of the stiffener plates and the other omissions. Given the type of contracts that the members of the CTBUH are involved with, I am not surprised that they don't want to ruffle feathers.It actually surprised me that they went as far as they did.
They are pretty sharp for sure to have noticed the stiffener plate issue without having access to the structural drawings. That impressed me. You don't.
Click to expand...

Awwww I am disappointed you went there.
 
Oystein said:
I don't get this. Either there are witnesses to the gas chambers that can be named, then name them; or there aren't, then say "there aren't". The overall conclusion about the reality of gas chambers, I am certain, does not stand or fall with this one question, and someone as knowledgeable, intelligent and well-spoken as Nick Terry can argue it even while admitting a minor gap in the picture.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't stand or fall on this one point. But, by participating in the argument about this one point, Nick would have been supporting the deniers' suggestion that it did. And Holocaust deniers are the same as any other kind of conspiracy theorist in that they take "a minor gap in the picture" to be refutation of the whole, while not requiring the same standard of their own theories. So the aim of the conspiracist is to bog down the discussion in minutiae, and to give the impression that these minutiae are significant. Sometimes it's better not to grace these tactics with a reply.

Dave
 
gerrycan said:
BS. you have no clue what I do or don't do outwith this forum.


Every time I hear a bell with an end on it chiming, it reminds me of you spanx ;)
Click to expand...
It is not engineering, maybe it is... ...

Cover Cold Play, and support the fantasy world of Richard Gage. lol, you support silent explosives, thermite and CD - 13 years of nothingness based on nonsense.
 
Oystein said:
Awwww I am disappointed you went there.
Click to expand...

Don't be. Even if these guys did agree with the truth movement which they apparently don't, I would not expect them to blur that line between their personal opinions and the professional view of the CTUBH. The fact that they did not press for a public answer to their question re the stiffeners suggests to me that they were genuinely trying to contribute to any safety issues that NIST might have missed.
My opinion is that the CTBUH did the right thing here and sadly NIST did not.
I would be interested to know how you and the others here think that NIST should have responded to the stiffener plate issue raised by the CTBUH.
 
DGM said:
Isn't sad how they seem to default to everyone else is a coward, not even considering they could be wrong.
Click to expand...

See me reply above re the CTBUH. I think they did more than many would just asking the stiffener plate question publicly. In short I think they knew the girder would have the plates and were stating that. Shame on NIST for not being open enough to answer them .
 
gerrycan:

The problem here is you present nothing more than finding fault with the NIST.

If you want to be taken seriously as an engineering entity (AE 9/11).
 
Dave Rogers said:
And Holocaust deniers are the same as any other kind of conspiracy theorist in that they take "a minor gap in the picture" to be refutation of the whole, while not requiring the same standard of their own theories. So the aim of the conspiracist is to bog down the discussion in minutiae, and to give the impression that these minutiae are significant. Sometimes it's better not to grace these tactics with a reply.

Dave
Click to expand...

Amen. gerrycan was avoiding - like the plague - admitting that he was a CD believer until called on it. Rather than describe his putative WTC7 CD scenario he managed to divert the debate into yet another discussion of expansion rates, pf and pg plates and the like.

For example (and there are many) "What if the rigged WTC7 had not been hit by burning WTC1 debris"? That alone is a CD-killer.

gerrycan - why, how and when do you believe WTC7 was rigged for CD?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
See me reply above re the CTBUH. I think they did more than many would just asking the stiffener plate question publicly. In short I think they knew the girder would have the plates and were stating that. Shame on NIST for not being open enough to answer them .
Click to expand...
Did they consider this as an invalidating factor for their conclusion?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
gerrycan:

The problem here is you present nothing more than finding fault with the NIST.

If you want to be taken seriously as an engineering entity (AE 9/11).
Click to expand...

Finding fault with NIST is a good thing surely. The problem here is actually NISTa unwillingness to react to those faults by correcting them and amending their analysis to reflect accurately the drawings that they were meant to base their analysis on.
 
gerrycan said:
Finding fault with NIST is a good thing surely. The problem here is actually NISTa unwillingness to react to those faults by correcting them and amending their analysis to reflect accurately the drawings that they were meant to base their analysis on.
Click to expand...
.........So if the NIST addressed your concerns and came to the same conclusion you would except it?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Did they consider this as an invalidating factor for their conclusion?
Click to expand...

No. They are a professional body commenting on a report that was released without the drawings being available and were taking NIST at their word and basing their question on the basis that the plates were not present. That is exactly how professional organisations work. They were not in posession of the drawings and were pointing out that perhaps the inclusion of these plates may have had an effect on NISTs conclusions. Despite the likes of Jay trying to dance on the head of a pin when not commenting on this, it would seem perfectly reasonable to expect NIST to go and check if the plates were indeed present.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom