'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cooperman said:
Please quote the relevant portion.

The relevant portion, to this discussion, is:



NCSTAR 1-A, p xxxii
Click to expand...

You are quoting from the preamble? Go to the relevant pages in the body of the report, pages 26 and 27.

For those reading this exchange (as at this point i really don't give a **** what cooperman thinks....his dishonesty has been proven), download the pdf ofthe final report for wtc7, and read the pages 26-27. Here you will see (a) all of what they did to rule out blast events, and why and (b) how dishonest cooperman is being.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because no proponent of cd has provided any reasonable (or any at all for that matter) hypothesis of what and where the blast events would involve. As well, because they reasonably concluded that the other areas that were considered, would not have been able to be carried out without detection.

Of course i do not expect paranoid fiction creators to understand that. Read the full report.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Because no proponent of cd has provided any reasonable (or any at all for that matter) hypothesis of what and where the blast events would involve. As well, because they reasonably concluded that the other areas that were considered, would not have been able to be carried out without detection.

Of course i do not expect paranoid fiction creators to understand that. Read the full report.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Who is a paranoid fiction creator?

I have read the full report, as you know. Their consideration of blast scenarios is laughable.
 
cooperman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because at least one column would have to be severed, and more than one column would require more explosives and hence a louder noise. +130dB is therefore a lower limit on the sound that would have been heard.

Dave

ETA: And, of course, the collapse of the mechanical penthouse prior to the collapse of the facade is clear proof that some or all of columns 79, 80 and 81 were the first vertical elements to collapse.
 
Last edited:
1. I know no such thing. Sorry, i am not taking your word for it. I find it amusingthat you quoted the summary/preamble section. Covenience or ignorance, could be either.

2. Laughable? Given the only reason they considered it was due to the harpings of paranoid fiction creators, i think they were very generous in what they did do.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Who is a paranoid fiction creator?

I have read the full report, as you know. Their consideration of blast scenarios is laughable.
Click to expand...
Your CD claims are dirt dumb fiction. You make claims without evidence, that is fiction, paranoid fiction if you understood your claims in the first place. But since you never thought your claims through, you have no clue why they would be considered paranoid fiction; to you they are real, they have become your delusions on 911. You offer no evidence because you think your claims are evidence enough.
 
T.A.M. said:
1. I know no such thing. Sorry, i am not taking your word for it. I find it amusingthat you quoted the summary/preamble section. Covenience or ignorance, could be either.

2. Laughable? Given the only reason they considered it was due to the harpings of paranoid fiction creators, i think they were very generous in what they did do.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Remember, my origanal post on this was about the CONCLUSIONS regarding blast scenarios. What better place to get the conclusion than in the summary.

Who are paranoid fiction creators?
 
cooperman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whastever the scenario, that column was the most likely involved. A blast on asny of the other columns would have been just as audible. Blasts on multiple columns might have broken windows to Hoboken.

If you can't quietly take out the most likely column to cause failure, there is no need to test the less likely.
 
cooperman:
Be honest, Did you only read the summaries? (don't be afraid to admit this, the report is a "dry" a reading as it gets)
 
cooperman said:
Remember, my origanal post on this was about the CONCLUSIONS regarding blast scenarios. What better place to get the conclusion than in the summary.

Who are paranoid fiction creators?
Click to expand...

Truthers.

TAM:)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because at least one column would have to be severed, and more than one column would require more explosives and hence a louder noise. +130dB is therefore a lower limit on the sound that would have been heard.

Dave
Click to expand...

This bears emphasis. NIST wrote a conclusion on the noise from a single column being demolished. Yet somehow, that's supposedly invalid because they didn't extend this thought experiment to the nearly dozen columns that truthers say would've had to have been severed.

I'm simply at a loss as to how the sound from an explosives demolition setup rigging multiple columns, some near the exterior, would be less noticible than a single column's demolition. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
Remember, my origanal post on this was about the CONCLUSIONS regarding blast scenarios. What better place to get the conclusion than in the summary.

Who are paranoid fiction creators?
Click to expand...
911 truth are the paranoid fiction creators. If not they would roll out their witnesses, and evidence. When will they? In 9 years?
 
DGM said:
cooperman:
Be honest, Did you only read the summaries? (don't be afraid to admit this, the report is a "dry" a reading as it gets)
Click to expand...

No I have read the full report, although it was when it was first released.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
I'm simply at a loss as to how the sound from an explosives demolition setup rigging multiple columns, some near the exterior, would be less noticible than a single column's demolition. :boggled:
Click to expand...

You're not thinking like a truther!

They cancel each other out, of course.

;)
 
cooperman said:
1. Yes

2. Yes I did. I recieved no reply.

NIST seem to conclude that there were no blasts because people didn't hear them. A strange conclusion, given that people did indeed hear loud noises that could (notice I said COULD) have been blasts.
Click to expand...

There were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition. There were no injuries or deaths with symptoms consistent with man-made explosions.

When considered with all the evidence and eyewitness accounts and the tabulation of the causes of death and types of injuries, the most likely explanation for the lack of barotrauma is the absence of man-made explosives at WTC on 9/11.

WTC was awash in first-responders trained to see the signs of explosives and search dogs trained to smell them. Nobody saw or smelled anything.
 
BigAl said:
There were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition. There were no injuries or deaths with symptoms consistent with man-made explosions.

When considered with all the evidence and eyewitness accounts and the tabulation of the causes of death and types of injuries, the most likely explanation for the lack of barotrauma is the absence of man-made explosives at WTC on 9/11.

WTC was awash in first-responders trained to see the signs of explosives and search dogs trained to smell them. Nobody saw or smelled anything.
Click to expand...

But Al, these weren't ordinary explosives.... these were NANO-AUGMENTED EXPLOSIVES!!

:D
 
Sound and Fury

Hi, I am pretty sure that one day we will read in this very thread something to that effect. People who do not agree with the published reports never seem to be able to come to their point without first attempting to get others to agree the published reports are in error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom