'What about building 7'?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They also limit their blast hypothesis to column 79. WHy would they do that when no proponent of controlled demolition believes it was column 79. 79 is their theory.

Because simulations of the collapse that best match what was observed point to a failure at column 79. Regardless of how that failure came about, that's where it likely occurred.

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

Sound

Hi, Oh it was the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator used to bring down WTC1 and 2. One of the side effects is it absorbs sound waves for hours after being employed. If you watch a video with the sound off you will notice how eerily quiet New York was that day

 

[Sabretooth]

Cooperman…you trying to break Jammy’s record or something?

People have been asking you on multiple posts as to why you believe the NIST report is inaccurate since about post #8…and 7 pages later, you still haven’t begun to address that question.

Instead, you’re arguing semantics and nonsense. This thread is example A1 as to why the skeptic community is fed up with the truthers spouting the usual BS.

You are obviously ignorant about the mechanics, physics, and mechanisms that were in play in WTC7. That became woefully apparent to me when you started in on the crap about fires only lasting 20 minutes. I’m shocked that you have the audacity to come in here and question the NIST report when you don’t understand 5 words of it.

The forum is full of qualified individuals that are professional engineers, architects, fireman, and pilots, among others. And yet, you are discounting all of those qualifications so you can continue to believe what some hack truther site spilled on you.

Stop being ignorant or you’ll just be another stupid truther for the rest of your life.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Who would want to demolish the building and why?

It isn't important, it was an accidental by product of the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

 

[JackDaniels]

Does anyone know how to obtain a text file of the NIST wtc 7 report, or an unsecured pdf of same? I downloaded the pdf from the NIST site only to find it's secured and I can't copy and paste from it.

 

[T.A.M.]

I had the same issue with the other NIST reports.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

Awesome display of burying posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6402060&postcount=86

"The CTBUH agrees with NIST.
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Peopl...raftReport.pdf

I think they might know a thing or two about all buildings eh?"

"Oh really.

From just a quick look.

10. CTBUH Conclusions

"The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79.

We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss
of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction,
as NIST appears to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns. "
on pg.10"

The silence from triforcharity was deafening. Must make sure that reference is removed
before teaching another class.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6402074&postcount=88

"FDNY knows that when buildings lean, and have huge bulges over many storys of the structure, that the building is going to collapse.

FDNY also knows that engineers who were there, who had a transit on the building, watching it's structural integrity go from bad to worse, know what they are talking about.

It is speculation to say that if Column 79 did not fail, that it would have stood."

"Regarding the infamous bulge;

From Firehouse Magazine;

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"

And in response, [drum roll] the OCTers dump about 4 pages of pure BS.

MM

 

[DGM]

Awesome display of burying posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6402060&postcount=86



The silence from triforcharity was deafening. Must make sure that reference is removed
before teaching another class.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6402074&postcount=88



And in response, [drum roll] the OCTers dump about 4 pages of pure BS.

MM

Could you point to the source of this post and his sources?

Originally Posted by JREF forum-Thread 10-story hole in WTC7-Page 106
"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"

Why didn't you direct link it?

 

[Miragememories]

Why didn't you direct link it?

What, and make for an easier burial?

MM

 

[DGM]

What, and make for an easier burial?

MM

Like you dig your own hole and we fill it in?

 

[T.A.M.]

What, and make for an easier burial?

MM

The link to the original report from them comes up broken.

Got another link to the report?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

never mind...I got it

TAM

 

[Reactor drone]

Oh really.

From just a quick look.

10. CTBUH Conclusions

"The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79.

We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss
of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction,
as NIST appears to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns. "
on pg.10

MM

It seems to be a small semantic distinction. NIST says that column 79's failure is the start of global collapse and CTBUH is saying the floor failures that led to the buckling of column 79 are the start of global collapse.

The mechanism is the same in both cases.

 

[T.A.M.]

lol....from the same report...

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. The Council considers that the ‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.

I would bold some areas, but all of it is too good.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

The link to the original report from them comes up broken.

Got another link to the report?

TAM

Hey your buddy triforcharity provided the link.

Ask him.

Fortunately I saved a complete copy.

MM

 

[TexasJack]

lol....from the same report...



I would bold some areas, but all of it is too good.

TAM

There's more responses on the forum from Mr. Scott who actually witnessed the collapse that day and was involved in rescue efforts. He also worked on the design of the Freedom Tower.

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

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=697314&page=2
I think C7 made 3 more idiotic posts after that, then they closed the the thread.

 

[Miragememories]

"lol....from the same report..."

"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. The Council considers that the ‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings."

That's nice.

But they shoot themselves in the foot;

10. CTBUH Conclusions

"The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79.

We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss
of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction,
as NIST appears to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns. "
from pg.10

The NIST conclusion is dependent on their theory that WTC7 failed due to the buckling of column 79.

I to would bold all areas, but some of it is all too good.

MM

 

[beachnut]

That's nice.

But they shoot themselves in the foot;


The NIST conclusion is dependent on their theory that WTC7 failed due to the buckling of column 79.

I to would bold all areas, but some of it is all too good.

MM

Now you have two expert groups against your delusional CD claims. Both agree fires did it. Now what? Any group that is not made up of paranoid conspiracy theorists support your CD fantasy?

 

[triforcharity]

I'm now hearing the argument "NIST does not have the statutory authority to make
findings of fault or negligence by individuals or organizations." because it's quoted in one of the reports.

NCSTAR1-3

And that would be accurate. NIST is not a LE agency, cannot set ay laws, nor inact any new building codes. They can make reccomendations, but that is it.

 

[triforcharity]

Awesome display of burying posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6402060&postcount=86



The silence from triforcharity was deafening. Must make sure that reference is removed
before teaching another class.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6402074&postcount=88



And in response, [drum roll] the OCTers dump about 4 pages of pure BS.

MM

And obviously, from your post here, that you have not read the entire report on 7WTC from NIST.

Please feel free to present your paper showing NIST wrong. List any assumptions, and also show your math.

When do you plan on doing this?