It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by exponent

The photos that you stand behind are a fraud.

They are a fraud and you know it.

You obviously cannot answer the questions I have put to you,

Before you ask me any question, I had asked you some very important question to you and you refused to answer any of mine, so go figure. How about answering mine and everyone else questions and posting sources to your wild allegations.

have done your research by only looking at 'truther' websites instead of visiting the source material.

Oh, come on exponent, where else would I go, there are only two kinds of web sites for 911, and everyone knows that. There are the TRUTHERS web sites and there are the DISINFORMATION, web sit, and thank you for acknowledging that I have been going to the correct one. Truthers stand for TRUTH. Disinformations stand for LIE.

There are no others and that is a FACT. I do not waste my time on disinformation thank you.

Your motto is "DENY IGNORANCE", you have failed it.

Ridiculing, and insults a common trait disinformation uses when they refuses to answers questions of truth that dose not support their fairytales.

I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone so unable to do any research they think no firefighters commented on exterior damage.

Thank you, you have made my day.

What does an honorary firefighter have to do with taken photos of the alleged gash on WTC 7? And all he got was two out of focus, or blurred photos.

He was allowed into areas that non firefighters were not.

Yes, the street in front of WTC7 was filled with debris, there was smoke exiting the entire south face of WTC7 and from early in the afternoon, even firefighters were prevented from approaching it due to collapse risk.

You made claim that no one could take any photos of this alledge gash because WTC was evacuated all day, however, I have shown you PROOF that was not true and there were people and firemen walking about at the WTC 7 all day. So why was there no close up of any photos taken of this alledge gash?

This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Regardless of where it was published, it's on the NIST website and was obviously geared toward the WTC study:

Ok, so if this was not in the NIST report, why should we care about it? what possibility do you think I am hostile towards?

Look, I just told you I would look through the report myself and find it all myself if you give me time to do so. Are you not satisfied with that?

I am satisfied with that, but don't you think you should verify evidence before posting it to support your claim?

Because I personally trust Jim Hoffman but I don't expect YOU to.

Prepare to be disappointed.

My advice to you is don't believe everything NIST says, either. If this WAS an inside job, the federal government would be the last place you would hear it, ok? Which is WHY you shouldn't take everything they say at face value, but actually use your own brain and think about what they are saying they are doing every time they change parameters, assume things that didn't actually happen, etc.

I do use my own brain, and I have no reason to inherently distrust NIST more than anyone else. They are not "the government", they are a governmental agency who contracted out to thousands of civilians during the course of their investigation. I have enough knowledge of the subjects to see and understand how they conducted their investigation, and why it is a reliable conclusion.

Who is speculating? It sounds to me like you don't know that he is wrong, and without checking yourself, you are just assuming he is. At least HE quoted the NIST report to support his claim, no matter if it came from a summary or not, they still said it, so one would assume they did what they said.

Ah but you see, he did not actually take issue with what they said, only what he believes they did. Take note:

Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure.

Is this apparent? Well of course not, the section he quotes is talking about an isolated core analysis used to gain extra insight into the behaviour of the core without having to run expensive trial runs on the extremely complex global model. If he were to have even read NCSTAR 1-6 he would have found this quote:

In the structural models described in this report, elements corresponding to the heavily damaged and severed columns were removed, while those corresponding to moderately or lightly damaged columns were retained without modifications

Clearly his assumption that a 10% reduction in load carrying capacity was equated to nothing is incorrect. Before you claim that the analysis is invalid as a result of this, it should be pointed out that in this context, heavy indicates a deflection of many inches, rendering the column able to hold only a miniscule fraction of its previous capacity.

You know all this stuff makes their data unrealistic, right? By definition, since it didn't actually happen that way?

Care to cite from a more reliable source?

What it IS is unsupported by data,

No it isn't, it's expicitly supported by the data, because it was within the error margins for measurement. You tell me you're educated in physics, and so you must know what the purpose of an error analysis is. NISTs use of the upper and lower bounds is absolutely normal and even expected in a case as complex as the WTC impacts.

And I guess I'm still waiting on it. Which is fair enough, because I'm dreading digging through the report to find everything Hoffman was talking about.

Why? It's well categorised and contains a lot of information. Start by just reading NCSTAR 1, and note down any areas you require more information on. I am more than happy to help you locate specific info.

I should mention I don't like run-arounds either. I already think this report is pure trash and a whitewash, so having all this trouble finding the right data to cite isn't impressing me much. So far all I have seen is they have shown a whole inch of deformation from a sagging truss. I haven't seen the evidence of great heating of the perimeter columns, either.
Great! That's what I'm talking about. Now how do they prove that, is it reproducible, where is the data, etc. That's the next logical step here.

I already gave you the page numbers to start reading on, what more would you have me do?

No PE being lost means the building is not doing the work.

Actually it means the visible portion isn't doing work. We can talk about the WTC7 structural behaviour if you like but I'm already having a hard enough time linking you to what information you need on WTC1+2.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by exponent

I'm going to download the final release and look through the different cases and see what exactly the differences are between NIST's theoretical cases and observed reality, or at least what of it we know for sure. Things like changes in approach angle, etc., like I listed. It'll probably take at least a couple of hours but I'll get around to it at some point and post anything I find in a new thread.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by bsbray11

NCSTAR 1-2B Chapters 1 - 8 Page 175 onwards (271 PDF)

edit: Also pages 257 and 291 (73 and 107 PDF)

[edit on 10-6-2009 by exponent]

new topics

top topics
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in