'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

It is STILL as true today as it was years ago, that the only researched, known proximate cause for the collapse of WTC7 is the unfought fires in that structure. It requires no belief in unseen magical devices planted throughout the building. It requires no fantastical schemes and spooks.

The failure of column 79 is evident. The unfought fires are evident. That column 79 was in the area of floors on fire IS evident. NIST knows this, the ASCE knows this, the CTBUH knows this. Only truthers deem it relavent to shove that aside in favour of an fictional, unspecified, scenario involving thermite and/or explosives placed somewhere by someone, at some time before 5pm on Sept 11/01, coordinated by some method.

AE911T is not interested in having NIST redo its report. It is not interested in recommendations to building codes that would arise from a new investigation into WTC 7 , or WTC 1 or WTC 2. It is interested in working towards a finding that these structures were part of a conspiracy by a shadowy , ill defined group that used incendiary and/or explosive devices to bring three of the dozen or so structures that were destroyed on 9/11/01.

 

[jaydeehess]

The only proper response to the obvious perceived lack of credibility of the initiation hypothesis in the NIST WTC 7 report, would be to have a new analysis and investigation done by those who perceive this lack of credibility.

.

FTFY

 

[carlitos]

The only proper response to the obvious lack of credibility of the initiation hypothesis in the NIST WTC 7 report would be to have a new analysis and investigation done.

10 years and hundreds of thousands in donations later, how is that investigation coming along?

 

[JayUtah]

I find it very difficult to believe that NIST is "provably wrong" after they submitted their method to peer review in the appropriate mainstream professional journal, yet those who are saying they are provably wrong cannot even garner the support of one percent of the relevant qualified experts for their proof. Not only that, NIST's critics have announced the outcome of their own investigation before they've even undertaken it -- not a strong position from which to accuse NIST of being unscientific.

No, there has been plenty of time for real engineers to examine and find fault with NIST's methods and conclusions if there were any worth mentioning, and it is not forthcoming. Those who claim error have done little beyond spinning a blustery hamster wheel for years over a building that doesn't even matter. As I have mentioned on several occasions the aim of conspiracy theories is to perpetuate controversy, not find truth. Only in the former can they maintain their illusion of relevance.

 

[Hellbound]

10 years and hundreds of thousands in donations later, how is that investigation coming along?

Moving right along.

They're now up to the point of arguing on message boards with third parties, they hope by next year to be at the level of blogging with comments enabled.

 

[Animal]

I find it very difficult to believe that NIST is "provably wrong" after they submitted their method to peer review in the appropriate mainstream professional journal, yet those who are saying they are provably wrong cannot even garner the support of one half of one percent of the relevant qualified experts for their proof. Not only that, NIST's critics have announced the outcome of their own investigation before they've even undertaken it -- not a strong position from which to accuse NIST of being unscientific.

No, there has been plenty of time for real engineers to examine and find fault with NIST's methods and conclusions if there were any worth mentioning, and it is not forthcoming. Those who claim error have done little beyond spinning a blustery hamster wheel for years over a building that doesn't even matter. As I have mentioned on several occasions the aim of conspiracy theories is to perpetuate controversy, not find truth. Only in the former can they maintain their illusion of relevance.

FTFY

 

[WilliamSeger]

Ah, pgimeno, oberving your responses is so comical at times. Your attempt here to try to appear to dismiss truthers for the alleged behavior of hunting for confirmation evidence is of course funny coming from the man who made up all sorts of stories to try defend NIST´s story. But it is absolutely hilarious when you take a close look at Seger´s comments, which are all about keeping up the desperate search to find something to defend your pet story:

Before completely discounting the walk-off hypothesis (and pardon me for rehashing for the umpteenth time), what about the eastward displacement of column 79, or the induced torsion found in the Chapter 8 simulation? And if we still can't find enough reason to believe the girder was pushed off its seat, what about being pulled off the seat by thermal contraction, or just a general floor structure collapse, as suggested by the CTBUH?

Pure gold

Why am I not surprised that you turned what I was actually saying completely on its head? What I was saying is precisely that if we can't find sufficient evidence to support a given hypothesis, then we should pursue different hypotheses, e.g. perhaps the girder was pulled off rather than pushed off. It's ironic that by missing that particular point, you are demonstrating once again that the basic principles of evidence-based reasoning are foreign to you.

 

[beachnut]

As for the flood of irrelvant non-sense comments in recent pages: JUST AS PREDICTED!

Debunking the debunkers blog site? lol, wow, now that is a source of nothing of value on 911; a web site which recycles BS from 911 truth; looks like it is web site to make money from ads. How much money to you guys make on ads? The truth comes out. What was traffic down, needed to come to "ex-JREF" to get some traffic? It seems everyone wants to cash in on the ignorance of 911 truth followers by selling books, dvds, ads, or ideas (gage sells ideas and makes 500k/yr). Cashing in on the gullibility of 911 truth followers - as you try to avoid posting your theory on WTC 7, at a skeptic forum, and instead use your obsession with NIST to spread BS.

What about building 7 is topic, and you are the one with nonsense, trying to refute a probable cause using BS, no science, no engineering, no clue what engineering models are. As predicted you can't present your probable cause, and you will declare victory, run away and post more delusional claptrap at DtD.

You can't explain your collapse sequence, no clue who planted your silent explosives which do not blow out windows. Gee, when I experienced explosives, the blast blew out my office window, yet your fantasy explosive not only are super silent, but they have zero blast effect, no evidence on the steel. As for thermite, the dust samples don't match thermite in energy, and the DSC is off; and Jones and Harriet have no clue what a DSC is for; you don't have any idea either.
Thus your probable cause has no evidence, it can't be thermite, thermite leaves evidence, no iron was found from thermite. Can't be explosives, no sounds were heard. There is zero evidence for your claims.

Unless you have a probable cause to present your feeble attempt to refute NIST cause, is bogus, a smoke screen to hide the fact you can't do more than present the work of others who claim someone else did 911. I have no clue how you can explain Flight 77 and Flight 93 in your WTC 7 fantasy CD.

As for who did your theory? DtD, the super non-science supporter of fantasy claims for 911, from 911 truth, has gone full BS fantasy.
Who did WTC 7, it seem you guys from Debunking the Debunkers have the story from a fellow 911 truth fantasy BS artist.

I think that important and complex operations such as 9/11-- plus there are lots of additional instances by now – are assigned thereby either jointly or to whoever’s primary covert security agencies are best-suited or most convenient to execute the job. And, for post-mortem purposes, it matters little which outlaw in the global gang pulled the trigger. That designated outlaw may well have been the Mossad, but dual-citizens, observers, and bag men are not trigger-men or the “brains” –

Who blew up WTC 7 with silent explosives, "an international cabal", and that is a delusional theory which you are stuck with.

You are the true NISTian, unable to express your theory on 911 due to some obsession with NIST. Fire damage is what caused WTC 7 to collapse, and that is the probable cause you have to attack not NIST, because NIST is not the only set of engineers (yes, engineers, not like you who are faith based followers of BS you googled, and BS you know is true because you are super google warriors of the web) who know it was fire and have already take steps in design to avoid the kinds of failure in WTC 7. You can't refute fire, and since you are obsessed with NIST, you will never make progress until you ignore NIST and prove your theory; which you can't prove a fantasy based on BS from 911 truth.

As predicted, 911 truth remains a failure - a fact.

Where is Jones? Where is your theory now? Where is your evidence? Why can't you stop the silly attack on NIST, and prove fire did not do it? Where is your theory on WTC 7.

How will your theory explain the interior structure failing 12 seconds before the roof-line? That will take some structural engineering analysis which you have not done. Your theory, which you can't present, was debunked on 911.

Can you name any of the players who did WTC 7? From the international cabal, can you point to a few of the top people?

 

[Ziggi]

...So pgimeno did NOT admit that NIST never made that claim, and the opposite is true: pgimeno still maintains that NIST DOES make that claim - that col 79 displaced east! You lied, didn't you, Ziggi?
...Wow - you say "that NIST never made that claim", but NIST DOES make that claim! You lied, didn't you, Ziggi?


This coming from you? LOL

Dear Oystein, what pgimeno had to admit was that NIST never said that the column displacement happened in time to aid the girder walk off:

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
The claim that walk-off was impossible is based on the unproven assumption that, since NIST doesn't mention the column as a factor for walk-off, it happened after the walk-off. Here's some news for you: NIST doesn't mention it wasn't a factor either.

You can't prove your assumption without asking NIST.

Go ask NIST and tell us back what they said.

So Oystein, did you grace us with your comment not having followed the discussion here at all, or did everything go in one ear and out the other?

 

[beachnut]

Dear Oystein, what pgimeno had to admit was that NIST never said that the column displacement happened in time to aid the girder walk off:


So Oystein, did you grace us with your comment not having followed the discussion here at all, or did everything go in one ear and out the other?

Wow, you are using quote-mining BS to fail at what would require engineering. Where is your engineering stuff? This post is some petty quote-mining grade school BS.

What is your theory? Waiting for evidence for your theory. Your obsession with NIST is ironic, since you are attacking someone's work you don't understand, using BS quote-mining techniques as your engineering skill.

Why are 911 truth followers NISTians, bring up NIST instead of their theory which 911 truth constantly claims to have overwhelming evidence.

What is your theory, you have no engineering skills to debunk NIST?
Are you avoiding your theory due to gerrycan's new approach? Is this some tactic you guys get in 911 truth faith based follower school?
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973

I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" -

Wow, you use talk, you say NIST is wrong, and magically your theory, the one you can't mention, becomes real; fantasy becomes reality in your fantasy world where you talk the opposition to death with, "they got the report wrong", BS done with waving hands, no engineering. Does this work on anyone? You are using the standard 911 truth NISTian obsession technique based on BS.

Why can't you present your theory? Who cares about NIST? Only you, on Quixotic quest of BS NIST bashing based on nonsense. Your theory please? And how does the east penthouse fit?

 

[Ziggi]

Why am I not surprised that you turned what I was actually saying completely on its head? What I was saying is precisely that if we can't find sufficient evidence to support a given hypothesis, then we should pursue different hypotheses, e.g. perhaps the girder was pulled off rather than pushed off. It's ironic that by missing that particular point, you are demonstrating once again that the basic principles of evidence-based reasoning are foreign to you.

You must not think very much of your audience if you think you are not completely transparent. You made a desperate attempt to rehash the old NIST hypothesis and you even begged pardon for doing so "for the umpteenth time":

Before completely discounting the walk-off hypothesis (and pardon me for rehashing for the umpteenth time), what about the eastward displacement of column 79, or the induced torsion found in the Chapter 8 simulation? And if we still can't find enough reason to believe the girder was pushed off its seat, what about being pulled off the seat by thermal contraction..

Now please continue your lecture about the basic principles of evidence-based reasoning, it is so convincing coming from you...

Or maybe you should just not say anything?

 

[Oystein]

Dear Oystein, what pgimeno had to admit was that NIST never said that the column displacement happened in time to aid the girder walk off:

So Oystein, did you grace us with your comment not having followed the discussion here at all, or did everything go in one ear and out the other?

I did follow the discussion in which certain truthers claimed that the column displacement did not happen in time, and tried to reverse the burden of proof.

Now, do you admit that (in the chapter 11 sim) col 79 was pushed east at floor 13 between 3.5 and 4 hours?
Do you further admit that the girder was pushed west between 3.5 and 4 hours?
That would satisfy at least a prima facie burden of proof that the beam that pushed the girder didn't need to expand by the full 6.25" in order to push the end of the girder 6.25" relative to the seat where it attached to col 79, would it not?
And NIST stated that the girder DID walk off because the 6.25" criterion WAS fulfilled - you do admit this, not?

So how about your claim that 79 was perhaps not pushed east far enough or at the right time to aid with the walk-off - what exactly do you claim? That NIST lied about the result? That the result is impossible because ... yeah because of what, actually?

 

[Ziggi]

I did follow the discussion in which certain truthers claimed that the column displacement did not happen in time, and tried to reverse the burden of proof.Now, do you admit that (in the chapter 11 sim) col 79 was pushed east at floor 13 between 3.5 and 4 hours?
Do you further admit that the girder was pushed west between 3.5 and 4 hours?
That would satisfy at least a prima facie burden of proof that the beam that pushed the girder didn't need to expand by the full 6.25" in order to push the end of the girder 6.25" relative to the seat where it attached to col 79, would it not?
And NIST stated that the girder DID walk off because the 6.25" criterion WAS fulfilled - you do admit this, not?

So how about your claim that 79 was perhaps not pushed east far enough or at the right time to aid with the walk-off - what exactly do you claim? That NIST lied about the result? That the result is impossible because ... yeah because of what, actually?

Oystein, nobody has said that NIST does not say that the two events happened within that little time slot. The sequence of the two events was discussed. NIST does not say the column displacement happened first and does not list it as a factor in chapter 11 even though that chapter is specifically set up to explain and summarize the girder walk off story, and the reason is quite obvious.

If you want to contradict NIST then the burden of proof rests on you.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

If you want to contradict NIST then the burden of proof rests on you.

Does this also apply to Truthers?


(Enquiring minds need to know!)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I for one have no problem investigating the NIST conclusion for errors, and I like the idea of ignoring any small alternatives that might have resulted in the same outcome. Because after all, if this one detail is wrong there's no other alternative because fires don't collapse buildings, ever. All of that materials properties knowledge never mattered anyway, and those CBTUH and ASCE guys that criticized NIST and suggested other mechanisms aren't worth listening to because they never paid attention to the final report anyway. It's true, because that is the only concievable reason they could ever not support the truth movement. One member years ago said it right:

The volunteers from ASCE who participated in both the Oklahoma City bombing and WTC building failure assessments were either very trusting and were fooled by the perpetrators into lending their names to the cover up or they were actually part of it. I have watched Gene Corley try to say the energetic jets seen coming out of the towers, below the demolition wave, are due to air being compressed by the collapse. I find it hard to believe he is that stupid.

Where to from here? Now that we know the NIST is wrong and we have a history of defaming people without evidence.... what's the next step. Shall we agree to investigate the NIST first.... or perhaps we should start addressing the lack of evidence for certain other causes that participants want to avoid discussing in favor of micro details that they can't discuss beyond?

 

[chrismohr]

The technical aspects of this long discussion are over my head, but when I put aside the insults, here is what I think I get from it. I knew that Ziggi's initial question about NIST's theory was going to end with Ziggi showing that the walkoff couldn't have resulted in global collapse in the way NIST said because they showed no evidence (and they have not been able to show enough expansion in their own models). Otherwise, he would not have asked.
There are several people here on both sides who know way more than I do about the technical side of this subject: MM, Ziggi, Tony, gerrycan, JSanderO, pgimeno, Oystein, to name a few. Our opponents have certainly put a lot of time and energy into researching the NIST Report, and I credit them for finding issues I would never have had the technical skills to notice.
Bottom line, it seems to me that Oystein and others are arguing that the NIST collapse initiation model is by necessity simplified, assuming for example that certain parts of the building were unmoving during the fire. CTBUH also points out that the walkoff could be better explained by some combination of thermal expansion followed by thermal contraction (which is not in the NIST model) and other factors they noted which NIST did not account for in their model. Being one inch off in NIST's estimates can be accounted for by the chaos of an unfought fire and factors that were not fed into the model.
JSanderO seems to go a step further and suggest some other collapse mechanism may be at play.
Tony jumps all the way to concluding that we need a new investigation because the NIST Report is fatally flawed.
So there are two questions: is Tony right that NIST put out a deeply inaccurate report and we need to start over again? Again, I can't go into the technical issues deeply, I can only review the conclusions of people with more technical knowledge. I do know that Purdue, Hawaii, CTBUH and countless other university students have indeed studied the NIST Report. It's a standard study tool in technical classes all over the world. Rebellious young bucks everywhere pore over it (it's a cool way to teach students about the principles of physics, architecture, engineering, etc) and I'm sure many of them would love to find a way to find fault with their elders. Outside of 9/11 Truth, I have not heard any MAJOR critiques, just the pointing out of relatively minor differences.
From what I can see, people here are joined by 99% of the technical world in agreeing with the major points of the NIST Report. So the second question is, do Tony, gerrycan, MM, Ziggi and others see fatal flaws where the rest of the world sees simplified models and minor inaccuracies? My long arguments with Chris Sarns about the fires in Building 7 came down to this question of perspective as well. The videos of Building 7 burning did not match the NIST model for which floors were burning when. Sarns said, clearly this is fraud. It seems to me that the extraordinary analysis with a fine-toothed comb of the NIST Report could turn up a fatal flaw, but I am not convinced that this is what Tony et al have unearthed.
I realize I have very little to add to the technical side of this discussion. I wonder if my little "perspective" summary seems reasonably accurate.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I realize I have very little to add to the technical side of this discussion. I wonder if my little "perspective" summary seems reasonably accurate.

At least you have a rare degree of civility in these discussions and go to discussions that many wouldn't have the patience for. I see that trait as a double edged sword, but not necessarily bad. The fatal flaw of this discussion in my eyes isn't that I think the participants are going with an obfuscated take on the traditional "CD" conclusions, but rather it's been bogged down to the inflexibility of one specific hair splitting detail which is shown "false" in the eyes of the critics invalidates absolutely everything. I should think having an open mind to different outcomes would involve being able to look at all of the angles, many of which may still support the core concepts.... just my non-condescending take on the matter

 

[Spanx]

Chris, perhaps you could point out where Tony & co have shown what they claim to be impossible.

If they have this evidence why are they not presenting it to the NIST ?

 

[Spanx]

duplicate

 

[beachnut]

...
I realize I have very little to add to the technical side of this discussion. I wonder if my little "perspective" summary seems reasonably accurate.

Actually, you are more technical than all the 911 truth CD side.
First of all, an engineer would prove their theory, no need to mess with making up BS about NIST, you present your case.

Did you attack other people's work in college to prove your point; or did you make your point? This is not a debate, it is engineering, and the CD fantasy supporter have not presented engineering.

Which gets to the point, why you are as good as the fantasy CD guys at the technical side. The fantasy CD supporters, who can't explain or support CD with evidence, take quotes from different section of NIST and play them against other sections.

Then we have gerrycan, who is using a propaganda techniques he outlines.
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
He has no intention of supporting his claims of CD, and will only attack NIST with words. I have seen no engineering, in fact if there was an analysis of NIST, we would have references to a completed work.

If you had the time to read NIST, you would see the CD fantasy followers are using BS to support NIST is wrong.

Proof that bashing NIST is there only support for their CD fantasy; they can't present, they will not present their CD theory, which they never worked on in the first place.

Stuck with silent explosives and a fake conclusion thermite paper, their only tool is to attack NIST. You have not seen any technical stuff from the CD fantasy followers, they are quote-mining posters comments, and NIST chapters; no engineering.

The key is why can't these 911 truth followers produce their theory with evidence. Attacking NIST is failed anti-intellectual pursuit based on flawed logic, and ignorance. Did you attack ideas, or did you prove your ideas? It is that simple. I don't remember doing my thesis in college, to disprove other ideas, I did my thesis to support my idea. And if I had taken the methods 911 truth CD followers are with NIST, I would flunk and not have my masters in engineering.

It is pathetic with so many CD fantasy followers present, they can't support each other and present their case with solid engineering analysis. Instead, we have a dumbed down quote-mining Balsamo style support for a theory they can't present because they are using some silly propaganda tactic of attacking other's work, because their work failed out of the box.

The quote-mining stuff is in the posts, as they take posts from different posters and play with words to support their attack on NIST. They think this is engineering, and technical, but it is the CD fantasy followers running out of stuff to post, and they are shallow on research, the end is near. Victory is close at hand, before running back to safe places where their fantasy of CD is not questioned but praised by the vast wasteland of those who can't think for themselves.

Unless you need typing practice, like me, this is only proof 911 truth can't support CD with evidence. You are not seeing technical stuff from 911 truth, you are seeing BS, they quote-mine stuff, that is as technical as it gets.