WTC 7 report aftermath - Truthers claims that we'll be hearing

[ref]

The long awaited report is finally up for evaluation. Of course, as we knew, many truthers are already denying the entire report. Richard Gage even announced that he would (and did) counter the report in a conference immediately after it's release. So, they don't even have to read it. They already know it can't be right.

But if/when some of them take time to read even the summaries or FAQ's, they will have some points that they will continue to throw at us.

Here I have attempted to build a summary of the points, that I think the truthers will be making of WTC 7 after the report's release.


1) NIST says: The investigators didn't look at actual steel samples from WTC 7. Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began.

Truthers will say: They didn't even test a single steel sample from WTC 7. It was all shipped away. How can any serious investigation be conducted without even looking at the steel. They cannot rule out the use of explosives/thermite.


2) NIST says: Even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

Truthers will say: How is it possible, no other high-rises have collapsed in fires before or since?


3) NIST says: Only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings.

Truthers will say: The building was not totally engulfed in flames, the out-of-control fires were limited to only a few floors. It had fires similar to other tall building fires. It should not have collapsed, they will say.


4) NIST says: WTC 7 did not enter free fall. According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds.

Truthers will say: What are they talking about. The entire building frame collapsed at 6.5 seconds, which is pretty much free fall. The structure below offered no resistance at all.


5) NIST says: [SIZE=-1]For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.[/SIZE]

Truthers will say: They had access, there were government agencies. They could only have put charges/thermite on one or a couple of columns. That's an easy trick to those who have access.


6) NIST says: NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely ...snip... It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected.


Truthers will say: Unlikely. They can't even entirely rule out the possibility. They did not even test a single piece of steel. Steven Jones has bla bla...


7) NIST says: The highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F).

Truthers will say: It's ridicilous to claim that these steel column temperatures could do anything to a building. Temperatures much higher were measured under the pile. NIST is lying about the temperatures.


There are many other points. More in the actual reports. But I doubt many of them will read the long versions, they'll settle for the summaries and FAQ's as they always have. And deny the findings of NIST as impossible. They did not even test the steel!

 

[MikeW]

Of course. They'll deny these conclusions because they must. No evidence will be required, I just saw someone saying that even if WTC7 only fell at 40% of freefall speed that's still impossible. How do they know that? They didn't say, but like "the WTC collapsing couldn't throw steel beams hundreds of feet" there's no need to produce math showing that: the true believers will swallow it whole anyway. They're desperate and there's no alternative.

Of course while they might want to delude themselves, it's going to get more difficult to fool others now. They've resolutely ignored the full collapse process so they can focus on the final part, for instance, but the NIST animations will make that impossible. So I expect we'll see some new fallback positions developing, for example attacking the animations, complaining that we don't have the models, etc etc.

We'll see how this unfolds in the next couple of weeks, though. I expect people like Jim Hoffman will have their own critiques up soon, and remember the BBC had planned to redo their WTC7 programme with the NIST conclusions. If I remember correctly, that's due out in September.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think some of the subset whose intelligence and subtlety has risen above the level of their intellectual honesty may be able to come up with a much more devious line of attack. Putting the tinfoil hat on for a moment, here's what I expect to see:

[CT]

The proposed collapse mechanism in NIST's WTC7 report, as we have seen, is very different to that proposed in their previous work of disinformation on the WTC1 and WTC2 collapse. Rather than remaining intact and pulling the columns inwards - a conclusion NIST had to avoid in this instance because of the absence of conveniently distorted photographs suggesting perimeter column deformation - we are now expected to believe that the floor trusses disconnected from their seats, resulting in the floors falling on those below, disconnecting them in turn, and eventually removing lateral support from the core columns which were then unable to stand alone. For all that this conclusion is based on a total lack of evidence, as NIST cannot have observed any of this happening, the explanation has a ring of familiarity about it. Since steel-framed skyscrapers have never before (and cannot) collapse due to fire alone, the very familiar ring of this explanation is in itself suspicious. Where did it originate?

Well, there's a strange coincidence here. The original, now-discredited, FEMA report on the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses claimed that exactly the same mechanism was responsible for the Twin Towers collapses. We know, though, that NIST showed that seat disconnection and pancake collapse was impossible. So why are they now trying to recycle the lies of their discredited predecessor by applying them to another building? The answer is obvious: the purpose of the FEMA report was not to advance a plausible explanation of the Twin Towers collapses - that piece of disinformation was always intended to be NIST's job - but to propagate the meme of pancake collapse due to truss seat failure. Once discredited, this report was meant to be forgotten in the light of the "superior" NIST explanation, but the collapse explanation would linger in the minds of those who had seen it. Thus, when NIST proposed their fake WTC7 collapse model, the sheeple wanting to accept it despite its impossibility would be able to recall that they had seen something similar before, and thus ignore the fact that NIST had already rejected this very same theory.

[/CT]

Bets, anyone?

Dave

 

[DC]

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

but we now learned that removing the interior walls and prepare works on Columns are overestimated, seems like it is not really that important.
also its not needed to place explosives on most columns, a few will do it.

not only will the Building codes change. also the CD experts learned alot.

 

[Good Lt]

but we now learned that removing the interior walls and prepare works on Columns are overestimated, seems like it is not really that important.
also its not needed to place explosives on most columns, a few will do it.

not only will the Building codes change. also the CD experts learned alot.

So....inside job/controlled demolition, then?

 

[DC]

So....inside job/controlled demolition, then?

non of the withnesses NIST spoke with heard any explosions also no explosion sounds was recorded on the videos watched by NIST.

 

[Good Lt]

non of the withnesses NIST spoke with heard any explosions also no explosion sounds was recorded on the videos watched by NIST.

So...inside job/controlled demolition, then?

 

[RedIbis]

The long awaited report is finally up for evaluation. Of course, as we knew, many truthers are already denying the entire report. Richard Gage even announced that he would (and did) counter the report in a conference immediately after it's release. So, they don't even have to read it. They already know it can't be right.

But if/when some of them take time to read even the summaries or FAQ's, they will have some points that they will continue to throw at us.

Here I have attempted to build a summary of the points, that I think the truthers will be making of WTC 7 after the report's release.


1) NIST says: The investigators didn't look at actual steel samples from WTC 7. Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began.

Truthers will say: They didn't even test a single steel sample from WTC 7. It was all shipped away. How can any serious investigation be conducted without even looking at the steel. They cannot rule out the use of explosives/thermite.


2) NIST says: Even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

Truthers will say: How is it possible, no other high-rises have collapsed in fires before or since?


3) NIST says: Only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings.

Truthers will say: The building was not totally engulfed in flames, the out-of-control fires were limited to only a few floors. It had fires similar to other tall building fires. It should not have collapsed, they will say.


4) NIST says: WTC 7 did not enter free fall. According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds.

Truthers will say: What are they talking about. The entire building frame collapsed at 6.5 seconds, which is pretty much free fall. The structure below offered no resistance at all.


5) NIST says: [SIZE=-1]For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.[/SIZE]

Truthers will say: They had access, there were government agencies. They could only have put charges/thermite on one or a couple of columns. That's an easy trick to those who have access.


6) NIST says: NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely ...snip... It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected.


Truthers will say: Unlikely. They can't even entirely rule out the possibility. They did not even test a single piece of steel. Steven Jones has bla bla...


7) NIST says: The highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F).

Truthers will say: It's ridicilous to claim that these steel column temperatures could do anything to a building. Temperatures much higher were measured under the pile. NIST is lying about the temperatures.


There are many other points. More in the actual reports. But I doubt many of them will read the long versions, they'll settle for the summaries and FAQ's as they always have. And deny the findings of NIST as impossible. They did not even test the steel!

Good post. There isn't a whole lot of opinion, so you've done a good job at presenting two possible opposing positions. This is the format an official WTC 7/NIST '08 thread should take.

 

[mrbaracuda]

non of the withnesses NIST spoke with heard any explosions also no explosion sounds was recorded on the videos watched by NIST.

So.. could it be you are.. AGREEING WITH NIST?
Or will you now cling to some thermi/ate crap theory?

 

[DC]

So.. could it be you are.. AGREEING WITH NIST?
Or will you now cling to some thermi/ate crap theory?

im not finished reading the report. But the FE sim looks already interesting, the way i expected to look. asymetrical.

 

[Good Lt]

im not finished reading the report. But the FE sim looks already interesting, the way i expected to look. asymetrical.

...and the logical conclusion is that 9-11 was an inside job / controlled demolition / black op / false flag operation?

Where are you going with this?

 

[mrbaracuda]

im not finished reading the report. But the FE sim looks already interesting, the way i expected to look. asymetrical.

What's an 'FE sim'?

 

[WildCat]

but we now learned that removing the interior walls and prepare works on Columns are overestimated, seems like it is not really that important.
also its not needed to place explosives on most columns, a few will do it.

It's not necessary for the actual demo, it is necessary to keep the amount and type of dust down so you don't end up with the air quality nightmare experienced after 9/11. And still a CD kicks up an enormous amount of dust. Also, windows are removed so glass shards aren't sent flying into spectators. And you still need to cut more than "a few" columns. NIST says that the floor systems becoming disconnected from the columns was a major factor in the collapse progression.

 

[DC]

What's an 'FE sim'?

Finite Element Simulation.

 

[DC]

...and the logical conclusion is that 9-11 was an inside job / controlled demolition / black op / false flag operation?

Where are you going with this?

where will it lead to?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Finite Element Simulation.

And that is to be found where?

 

[DC]

And that is to be found where?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

 

[e^n]

And that is to be found where?

You can find NISTs FEA in NCSTAR 1-9 and NCSTAR 1-9A.

It looks acceptable, but really accuracy by the end of the simulation is quite debatable, it did capture some interesting building mechanisms though. It's easy to observe on videos of the collapse that the easternmost side seems to remain relatively sturdy, while the east/west walls seem to buckle close to the east side and result in a tilt in the upper section.

I haven't had time to read the report in depth yet but it looks quite interesting, unfortunately not as convincing as the reports for WTC 1 and 2 but I may have missed a lot.

 

[mrbaracuda]

You can find NISTs FEA in NCSTAR 1-9 and NCSTAR 1-9A.

Thanks.
I'm just past the hypothetical blast scenario of NCSTAR 1A since I had to stop reading. Meh. But it's the weekend, hooray!

 

[Pardalis]

I wonder what truthers will say for this:

[SIZE=-1]"The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires"

Why would "teh conspirators" do something that clearly is an oddity, a first in history? Why would they attempt to bring attention to this building's collapse by making it extraordinary?
[/SIZE]