It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 

hgfbob, that is a good question about if NIST knew about the free fall period when they released their initial report. I went back and watched the video of their response to Chandler but I still can't make up my mind. It seems pretty stupid to me to use as their defense that free fall could not have happened if in fact they were all ready aware that it did happen. Their responses also seem especially lame and desperate like they were caught totally off guard. But then, on the other hand, these free fall claims have been around for years so I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have discovered this before releasing their initial report.

The rest of your post I agree with.




posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

How about all the evidence and blueprints? You can't peer review something with just the data from itself.


No, that's exactly what a peer review does.

It takes the data from a journal article and checks to make sure that correct methodology was followed. They never have access to the raw data.

And that's the point I've been making.

That the claims of "no peer review" are inconsequential, unless consensus among SE's say that there is a problem.

And you don't see any consensus saying that.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter

How about all the evidence and blueprints? You can't peer review something with just the data from itself.


No, that's exactly what a peer review does.

It takes the data from a journal article and checks to make sure that correct methodology was followed. They never have access to the raw data.


WRONG...you can not have a true peer review process UNLESS you release the HYPOTHESIS, and WHAT led you to the HYPOTHESIS...that INCLUDES all the data

NIST STILL REFUSES

paper released 1-09 refuting the "jolt" that NIST and Bazant 'SAY' is what initiates the collapses in BOTH towers...THEY include ALL the data in their paper so others can check the work

Active Thermite Discovered in Dust, paper, give ALL the data, short of supplying a packet of dust with every paper....



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion



Prove I said this.

Or admit that you're lying and retract this misrepresentation of what I said.


YOUR the one who said the FACADE just GAVE WAY...YOUR the one who said EVERYTHING followed the EPH falling in.....YOUR the one who said ALL the steel acted the SAME

free fall ACCELERATION of the ENTIRE building= NO resistance of the vertical support...if something is there, it HAS to offer resistance

WE CAN SEE NO fire AROUND the perimeter to affect to vertical support,

So.....HOW do the perimeter columns, give NO MORE resistance that any other vertical support involved in fire

'specially when...

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by hgfbob
 

hgfbob, that is a good question about if NIST knew about the free fall period when they released their initial report. I went back and watched the video of their response to Chandler but I still can't make up my mind. It seems pretty stupid to me to use as their defense that free fall could not have happened if in fact they were all ready aware that it did happen. Their responses also seem especially lame and desperate like they were caught totally off guard. But then, on the other hand, these free fall claims have been around for years so I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have discovered this before releasing their initial report.

The rest of your post I agree with.



lol....Sunder's stumbling is classic

he was caught totally off guard...he was not expecting that from a science teacher
No one could really do anything till the people who were responsible for the investigation finished...final report 11-08

The knowledge of free fall might have been around for a while, but it was up to NIST to include it in the report....they didn't, and they were challenged, NOW it's in, and they PATHETICALLY tried to hide it by breaking the collapse into phases...FF ACCELERATION is an event all it's own, it can't be hidden



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by hgfbob
when did Bazant have his paper again?.....9-12-01

It was first published on 9/13 in its most simplified form showing a single floor drop was enough to overcome load carry capacity. It exists in the 'official story' only as a reference.

which has been shown to have miscalculations in the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate, This error overestimate the potential amplifying effect of the jolt he claims occurred...the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m.
off by a factor of 10...pretty BIG freakin' mistake, don't you think?


ummmmm....WHAT large impact...7 wasn't hit by a plane, and falling debris didn't contribute to the collapse

The east penthouse impacted the lower floors of WTC7 as it collapsed into the building. This destroyed the majority of load carrying capacity, which you would know if you had read the report.

and there is YOUR problem...ignoring NATURAL physics for NIST physics...the EPH falling in WOULD NOT continue throughout the building, if so, it is ALWAYS DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause, WE WOULD SEE the roof and the facade, progressively collapsing also near the hole of the EPH...


...WTC 3,4,5,6 had debris fall DIRECTLY on them....not one had total global collapse

Not one was even remotely comparable to WTC7, are you really comparing a 5 storey building with a 47 storey building?

and the Marriott(WTC3) was ...20+ stories?...and ANYWAY, what kind of twisted pretzel logic is this?...lol...smells like DESPERATION


....and WHAT do YOU mean "it doesn't" fall at 9.8m/s^2 (are you actually resorting to lying?),

I didn't say that, I said that spot fire didn't cause freefall, massive structural damage did.

"massive structural damage"...from WHAT?...the EPH is localized damage


It means that as soon as the kink is formed, the ENTIRE building is falling as fast as an object can fall...with NO resistance...NOTHING to slow it

DO YOU UNDERSTAND

YES I UNDERSTAND


and as far as progressive collapse...if there WERE a progressive collapse, WE WOULD SEE IT...there is TOO much weight with the other PH and the HUGE HVAC unit, THEY WILL NOT STAY when vertical support is removed...THAT is PROVEN by the EAST PH falling in when it's vertical support was removed....Progressive collapse occurs when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the collapse of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes additional collapse. The resulting damage is DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause...the EPH falling in, WOULD NOT CAUSE a total global collapse of the ENTIRE building, EVENLY at a free fall ACCELERATED rate...THAT WE ALL SEE

You seem to be sure that the east penthouse could not possibly cause a progressive collapse. Why?

because it is localized damage, there is NO WAY to progress horizontally, lateral and diagonal bracing along with steel beam support for the trusses, the trusses themselves with the steel pan with 4" slab of reinforced concrete, along with MANY more redundant applications, which all together make a building act as a single unit



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

WRONG...you can not have a true peer review process UNLESS you release the HYPOTHESIS, and WHAT led you to the HYPOTHESIS...that INCLUDES all the data

NIST STILL REFUSES

paper released 1-09 refuting the "jolt" that NIST and Bazant 'SAY' is what initiates the collapses in BOTH towers...THEY include ALL the data in their paper so others can check the work



Ok, so you just showed that you really don'y know what a peer review is. Show me one example where the reviewers don't rely on the info contained in the report that they're reviewing.

The structural docs are private property. NIST is prohibited by law from releasing them in their entirety. They DID include relevant documentation to prove their hypothesis. And again, qualified SE's don't have a problem with it.

Then you're saying that Tony's paper has all the relevant structural documentation then? So what's your beef?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion



Prove I said this.

Or admit that you're lying and retract this misrepresentation of what I said.


YOUR the one who said the FACADE just GAVE WAY...YOUR the one who said EVERYTHING followed the EPH falling in.....YOUR the one who said ALL the steel acted the SAME

free fall ACCELERATION of the ENTIRE building= NO resistance of the vertical support...if something is there, it HAS to offer resistance

So.....HOW do the perimeter columns, give NO MORE resistance that any other vertical support involved in fire



I notice that you're unable to quote where I said that "COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion". I'm not surprised that a retraction doesn't accompany this.

How much resistance then? If you're unable to quantify it, then you're just arguing from incredulity.

You mean the ones that were buckled, as evidenced by the EPH falling in? Since they were therefore gone and offered 0% resistance, 1% resistance is greater than 0%.Are you able to grasp this relatively simple concept?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

WRONG...you can not have a true peer review process UNLESS you release the HYPOTHESIS, and WHAT led you to the HYPOTHESIS...that INCLUDES all the data

NIST STILL REFUSES

paper released 1-09 refuting the "jolt" that NIST and Bazant 'SAY' is what initiates the collapses in BOTH towers...THEY include ALL the data in their paper so others can check the work



Ok, so you just showed that you really don'y know what a peer review is. Show me one example where the reviewers don't rely on the info contained in the report that they're reviewing.


BOTH NIST reports for the WTC collapses...WHERE is the EVIDENCE that backs the HYPOTHESIS?

Symmetrical collapse,through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall speed the columns gave no resistance 1400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris outside of building footprint The official theory would have us believe that each of the twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns of steel on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000 or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath don't exist.

"Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values(600C)
Paint tests indicated low steel temps(480F)
Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
Underwriters Laboratories found that there was no floor collapse.
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."NIST-p.143
NIST-1-3 p.xli,101,132

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133


The structural docs are private property. NIST is prohibited by law from releasing them in their entirety. They DID include relevant documentation to prove their hypothesis. And again, qualified SE's don't have a problem with it.


HOW come NONE of those "qualified SE's" caught Bazant's MISTAKE of his calculation of the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate, off by a factor of ten,(the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m.). This error overestimates the potential amplifying effect of the jolt he claims occurred...WHY is it, THAT WE SEE the antenna,(which is sitting on the hat truss, over the core columns, falling 9+floors,while, NOTHING below the impact area is affected....BOTH NIST and Bazant say that there is a "SOLID BLOCK" of force that is going through BOTH towers to push them to the ground... and there are 700+, QUALIFIED architectural and engineering professionals that want a NEW investigation


Then you're saying that Tony's paper has all the relevant structural documentation then? So what's your beef?


Hmmmm...let me see......HOW about the FACT that there is "NO JOLT", or "EXTREME FORCE", that initiates the collapse of BOTH towers..so WHAT did?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion



Prove I said this.

Or admit that you're lying and retract this misrepresentation of what I said.


YOUR the one who said the FACADE just GAVE WAY...YOUR the one who said EVERYTHING followed the EPH falling in.....YOUR the one who said ALL the steel acted the SAME

free fall ACCELERATION of the ENTIRE building= NO resistance of the vertical support...if something is there, it HAS to offer resistance

So.....HOW do the perimeter columns, give NO MORE resistance that any other vertical support involved in fire



I notice that you're unable to quote where I said that "COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion". I'm not surprised that a retraction doesn't accompany this.


By the FACT that YOU agree with the STORY that the ENTIRE building has free fall ACCELERATION, EVENLY falling with NO part showing any more or less resistance than any other part, whether it is involved with fire or not.



How much resistance then? If you're unable to quantify it, then you're just arguing from incredulity.

You mean the ones that were buckled, as evidenced by the EPH falling in? Since they were therefore gone and offered 0% resistance, 1% resistance is greater than 0%.Are you able to grasp this relatively simple concept?


LOL...the "1%" is something YOU are throwing out there...it means NOTHING

and WE'RE NOT talking about the EPH falling in...THAT is a localized collapse, and WOULD NOT affect the vertical support across the entire building
WE are talking about the perimeter columns that the facade IS attached to, the roof line, where the measurement for free fall ACCELERATION was taken

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

SO AGAIN....WHEN does COLD steel, NOT involved in fire, take the SAME characteristics as 'HOT' steel, involved in thermal expanding fire?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Nothing in this post is even remotely valid or correct, not even your ability to quote me. You also repeated yourself with the UL tests.

Your criticisms are incorrect, what you don't seem to realise is that the reports of that study support NISTs conclusion. Why are you simply repeating what you find on truther websites without doing your own research? Is this really denying ignorance, or is it embracing it?

The east penthouse was not localised damage, it was initiated 3/4 of the way down the structure. The entire vertical section collapsed into the building, certainly counting as severe structural damage.

All of the details for this are in the NIST report, and all of your questions could be answered and your misconceptions corrected if you would just read it. Hell I will be happy to point you to the right sections.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


I did point something out. Your remarks on the UL tests.

I have pointed this out repeatedly now. Please read the NIST report and understand why these tests were conducted, and what the conclusions of them were. How can you possibly expect to show NIST to be wrong, when you don't even know what NISTs theory is, or even why they were conducting the tests? If you do at least, you've given no indication of it and made repeated false statements.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


and STILL, YOU generalize...I want YOU to post for ALL to see

but we are talking about 7 here...NOT the towers



[edit on 14-7-2009 by hgfbob]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


I don't think you are even reading my posts, yours does not even make sense. What do you want me to post for all to see? You are wrong regarding NISTs fire tests, you do not understand what the results mean, and implicitly this must mean you do not understand NISTs theory. This topic may be about WTC7, but you brought these claims up and so I feel I should point out they are completely false.

How much more specific would you like?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


It wouldn't have the same psychological effect. It would be just another building lost to fire as oppossed to taken down by terrorists. Much more dramatic to lose three and four buildings then two.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by hgfbob
 


I don't think you are even reading my posts, yours does not even make sense. What do you want me to post for all to see? You are wrong regarding NISTs fire tests, you do not understand what the results mean, and implicitly this must mean you do not understand NISTs theory.


the NIST THEORY,(mission), is to have FIRE be the cause...EVERYTHING else is ignored.



This topic may be about WTC7, but you brought these claims up and so I feel I should point out they are completely false.
How much more specific would you like?


EVERYTHING I posted came from the NIST reports.....with the page and Vol.
It is THEIR OWN testing results, that ARE NOT a HYPOTHESIS

It's not my problem that they IGNORE ALL the testing results for another agenda

HOW does taking FACTS from the NIST report, make it... NOT TRUE?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob
the NIST THEORY,(mission), is to have FIRE be the cause...EVERYTHING else is ignored.

So what initiated collapse in NISTs theory?


HOW does taking FACTS from the NIST report, make it... NOT TRUE?

When you make claims like 'this does not support their conclusion' when you have not understood the conclusion. This is how you are using facts to try and support a statement which is not true.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by hgfbob
the NIST THEORY,(mission), is to have FIRE be the cause...EVERYTHING else is ignored.

So what initiated collapse in NISTs theory?


[NCSTAR 1-6, pp. 416, 238, 196] “Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”...“The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.”

Bazant said, "when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt."

the first tower, WE SEE the 'tipping top', INSTANTLY stop it's forward momentum...and then 'crumble to dust...WHERE is the force pushing the building down

the second tower, WE SEE the antenna falling, STRAIGHT DOWN, while there is NO MOVEMENT in the building BELOW the impact area....WE CAN SEE THIS ALSO

BOTH "tower crushing blocks", breaking to bits, BEFORE contact with the lower section

HOW does all that dust and debris form, BEFORE there is contact with the lower section, in which FRICTION, can create the dust and debris


HOW does taking FACTS from the NIST report, make it... NOT TRUE?

When you make claims like 'this does not support their conclusion' when you have not understood the conclusion. This is how you are using facts to try and support a statement which is not true.

still generalizing....post it



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Desucher
The fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours before it collapsed.

I don't see what's so surprising here.


Wow, what I am seeing so far in this thread from the 'debunkers' is absolutely hilariously obvious.

They claim that the nutter truthers just believe anything they see on the internet and on and on. That they LIE and on and on.

Then they themselves pull of lies like this one about how massive the fires were.

The fires were NOT massive. The building was NOT engulfed. There were a few separate fires spread throughout the building. Not even on 10% of the of floors!

Then, miraculously, the building comes straight down. All of the support just gives out for yet the third time in history and a steel structure falls at free fall for a few seconds.

Yup, massive fires cause uniform collapses. Yup yup. I'm swallowing that BS! NOT!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join