My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

post by MI5edtoDeath

Please do not call me a liar. That is fighting talk.

[SNIP]

Building 7 did not fall sideways, it fell straight downwards. It fell onto its on footprint and it is a fact irrespective of what caused it to collapse.

WTC 7 fell northward - the wreckage crossed a 4 lane road (Barclay St) to smash 30 West Broadway



Looking wast along Barclay St - WTC 7 on right, 30 West Broadway on left




Notice all the debris from WTC 7 piled against 30 West Broadway

This 30 West Broadway

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

What hole? I looked at your video and I saw a small number of broken windows, a fire on a lower floor and a lot of dust from where the twin towers collapsed.

Are you looking at RIGHT building [SNIP]?

Gray building in foreground is 140 West St aka Verizon building, WTC 7 is in back You are looking on the
west face. WTC 7 south face was gouged by debris creating gash some 18-20 stories high

You can not see it do to the smoke cloud from the numerous fires

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Again, the burden of proof is at the people making the claims.

If you think this then you have misconceived the nature of the scientific method.

LOL. Reality check... internet debates do not adhere to the "scientific method", nor should they.

Yeah, people have to be talked out of doing experiments themselves instead of performing them and thinking about the results for themselves.



Let's see, there is gravity, there is mass, there is static load, there is dynamic load, there is acceleration. Were any of those involved in what happened to the north tower? Oh yeah, the towers were not designed to be as weak as possible. Of course this is not a tube-in-tube structure. That would be a lot harder and more expensive to build.

But the great Ryan Makey was not talking about a tube-in-tube design for his model that he never actually built and tested he just strongly implied that it would do what he expected. Why didn't he just build one if he is so smart?

But shouldn't our engineering schools be able to do it? They have only had TEN YEARS.

psik

The Trusters take such condescending pride in their snarky skepticism. The confidence they show in the version of events given us from on high seems misplaced to me, however. You have to consider the source and prior track record when it comes to the federal government investigating controversial events and phenomena. It is not one of bravely, transparently seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth no matter whose ox gets gored or what corporate money machine, gold-plated institutional hierarchy, or cherished schemes of nationalistic hegemony may be upended by inconvenient findings.

Are the Trusters so obtuse that I have to cite chapter and verse?

Much of the towering, creeking, noxious, in imminent danger of sequential collapse house of cards that is the OS is dependent on unprecedented and often overlapping failures, improbable coincidences, gross violations of established practice and responsibility, disappearing and disregarded evidence and witnesses, grasping, convoluted and incomplete explanations and half-baked simulations, abandonment of the scientific method, and, most importantly, the undereducated, cowed, confused, economically kneecapped and relentlessly propagandized state of the average American citizen.

And my wife wonders why I am so bleak of late. Maybe if I hadn't drunk the "America uber alles rah, rah, sis boom bah" Kool-Aid with such gusto earlier in life this all wouldn't be such a bitter pill now.

------------
For clarification, when I say "Trusters" I am referring to defenders of the official description and explanation of the events of 9/11.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
If you think this then you have misconceived the nature of the scientific method. The scientific position is intrinsically skeptical by default and the total burden of proof lies with the advocates of each and every new proposition. The idea that a steel-framed building can collapse globally and suddenly from nothing but fire is indeed a new proposition that's never happened in the history of the real-world before. That's why the burden of proof rests with NIST. Not us

Maybe you missed it, but NIST published extremely detailed reports of the collapses. What more do you want? If you disagree, write a paper that shows what is wrong, get it reviewed, and get it published. That is how science works.

Oh and here is the "never happened in the history of the real-world before" right back at you. Can you show me a building demolition using thermite? Or otherwise one without evidence of explosives? Or one where first an internal collapse is observed?

See, the controlled demolition you are advocating is also of a type that has "never happened in the history of the real-world before". And even according to yourself, the burden of proof is with you.

I would direct you to the video below showing an experiment with crude equipment showing that thermate in relatively small quantities is capable of cutting through steel with speed.

Notice how it takes time for the devices to severe the columns. Are you saying that these devices were in the WTC? And they were timed perfectly so that all columns failed simultaniously? If so, where is your evidence? What other can you present than pure speculation?

Sorry, but I'm not going off on a wild-goose chase. You are the one who stated categorically that controlled demolitions do not collapse at free-fall without providing a scratch of evidence to support your claim. I didn't make the claim. You did. Don't throw it back at me.

Aha, ok, so you are not claiming that free fall is a characteristic of CD. In that case I don't see the point in proving a negative to you, as you are not making any argument to begin with. It would be a useless exercise.

What resources do you think one requires in order to test the veracity of NIST's models?

Computer simulation software and a group of highly trained structural engineers.

You haven't even addressed my challenge! You disappoint me. You are someone who has made a career out of denigrating dissenters to the 9/11 official story dogma, yet you demonstrate a complete inability to justify it when challenged to do so. Oh well, I expected as much.

What challenge? Did I miss something?

Deleted because it posted twice

reply to post by Elbereth


"The Trusters take such condescending pride in their snarky skepticism."

I started out like you and had not done my homework and was tired of people spitting out lies because they had nothing else to do.

After weeks of looking into the subject i was forced to confront the obvious that it was an inside job.

I don't mind being "condescending" to people that have not done their homework after ten years and keep coming up with the same strawman arguments time and again and resort to insults when backed into a corner.

I bet you don't even know half the 19 so called terrorists turned up alive and well or that a passport flew out the back pocket of one of the terrorists and through an inferno only to be discovers in the street a day later in a pile of dust or that this paper in this passport was about the only bit of paper ever discovered from any of the three buildings that fell down on 9/11.

Now when the governments say this is all true and yet none of the memory chips from the hundreds of phones onboard these planes were ever discovered and if I find myself questioning the state then will you attack me as if something is wrong with my logic or do you think that questions that are not answered by arrogant leaders will somehow go away because here we are eleven years later and unanswered questions always have a habit of not going away or are asked in another manor.

it's OK patriots are able to stand up to the state and we are going nowhere until justice has been served and that's not going to happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria Russia or Iran but here at home and in Israel so if you really want to protect the good name of the USA then you should be fighting with us to get a new full and open investigation opened and not rely on the official story where the man (kissinger) leading the enquiry was thrown off the case without having to answer the reasons why and half the original comity members themselves have been forced to come forwards and say the report was one big fix.

Lets look at official story without having to contradict any of the government elected members or the commission itself and let us know what parts you don't agree with.

reply to post by Master_007


Please notice I said "Trusters" not "Truthers." Maybe I should have said "OSers" instead of "Tusters."

It seems unlikely you bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post. If you did....well....

TRUSTERS=OSers

reply to post by Master_007


Yes you can see here how rare a surviving piece of paper from any WTC buildings was :-


911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Elbereth


Not sure that is the correct term either. I think that I fall under the category "OSer" but I don't feel in anyway being addressed by your post. I think "truster" is a better term, although I am not sure if you will find any in this thread or forum. I think most people on either side got interested in the subject as a result of a lack of trust in governments to start with.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Elbereth

 

Not sure that is the correct term either. I think that I fall under the category "OSer" but I don't feel in anyway being addressed by your post. I think "truster" is a better term, although I am not sure if you will find any in this thread or forum. I think most people on either side got interested in the subject as a result of a lack of trust in governments to start with.

edit on 6-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

So am I to understand that you believe most Trusters ventured into the 9/11 conspiracy mire because they distrusted government and then happily discovered that, at least in this case, the government was being truthful?

Sorry, but I can't quite wrap my mind around that one.

Originally posted by Elbereth

So am I to understand that you believe most Trusters ventured into the 9/11 conspiracy mire because they distrusted government and then happily discovered that, at least in this case, the government was being truthful?

Sorry, but I can't quite wrap my mind around that one.

No, they discovered that about everything that the truth movement is offering is complete nonsense and often just flat out lies. I have no doubt that people within the government have been lying about 911 in order to cover their asses. That does not mean that there were no hijacker or the buildings were taken down with explosives. I also have no doubt that no government nor any other group has the competence to pull a conspiracy like 911 off without getting exposed.

Originally posted by -PLB-
No, they discovered that about everything that the truth movement is offering is complete nonsense and often just flat out lies.

You say "about everything," not simply "everything" that the truth movement says is nonsense. Why the qualification? What evidence have you discovered that is incompatible with the OS?

You have me curious.

reply to post by Elbereth


If you can tell me what you mean by "official story" I am sure I will be able to find an concrete example.

Things that are open to debate for me are things like the foreknowledge of the attacks by intelligence agencies, the extend of Osama's involvement and the justification of attacking Afghanistan. I am pretty sure we have been told half truths and lies in that area, just like with the attack on Iraq (and the alleged WMD that were never found). I find it very odd that with the Hijackers being mostly Saudis, the USA decided to go to war with Afghanistan. But this is of course not at all a popular point in the truth movement. As if 911 really was an inside job to attack Afghanistan, the story they would have made up would involve Afghan hijackers and not Saudi hijackers.

reply to post by -PLB-

aybe you missed it, but NIST published extremely detailed reports of the collapses. What more do you want?

Yes, we know. NIST's detailed reports contain lots of data. However, data is not the same as information and I think that is the problem with it all. Information is defined as 'that which removes uncertainty' (i.e. 'knowledge') and mere data don't necessarily contain any of it. So it's possible to have an infinite amount of data but no information at all. NIST's excruciatingly long-winded 10,000 page report is a perfect example of prolific data that is void of any useful information. NIST's computer-simulations do not even bother simulating the entire collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and stops at the 'initiation collapse'. If you are happy with what NIST have done, I guess it's up to you. It seems inadequate and incomplete to me though. But hey, never mind.

If you disagree, write a paper that shows what is wrong, get it reviewed, and get it published. That is how science works.

Thanks, but I don't need to. Other scientists have already done that for me for reasons they have explained in detail in the scientific literature.

Oh and here is the "never happened in the history of the real-world before" right back at you. Can you show me a building demolition using thermite? Or otherwise one without evidence of explosives? Or one where first an internal collapse is observed?,

I can show you a radio tower being demolished with thermite but I don't think you'll be convinced by it as its much smaller than WTC7. Nevertheless, the video posted a page back shows that thermate can cut through steel with considerable speed showing that it's theoretically possible in practice at least. I think the problem here, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that WTC7 shares uncanny characteristics with a controlled demolition, and so naturally people are going to assume it is a controlled demolition. If you see a duck in the park, would I be required to prove to you that it was a duck? I don't think so. The onus is not upon rational sceptics like us to disprove the NIST-proposition. If the NIST-lobby want the rational public to accept it, the onus is wholly upon them to prove it rationally to us.

Of course, NIST could just end the controversy once-and-for-all and release their models for independent testing and scrutiny, which they claim mathematically proves their theory, but NIST don't seem willing to do that. They have all the cards and they're holding them very close to their chest. However, I don't expect NIST to release their models any time soon. It seems to me that NIST have no interest in finding the truth. But I think this is to be expected. NIST has been politically compromised. It is an agency of the US government, not an independent scientific research institution, and its first loyalty is to the US government. And its data output cannot be authenticated by ordinary members of the public, which means that it cannot be checked and verified. In no real sense of the word is NIST functioning as a public scientific body and no-one who wants to do any real science can afford to take its data on blind trust as it proposes implicitly that we all do.

What challenge? Did I miss something?

My challenge was: How do you know that NIST's theory is not make-believe? What independent reality-checks have you performed upon them as all good sceptics are supposed to do? (Just checking your post with a sceptical mind.) I'm getting tired of this, so I'll be counting myself out now.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Yes, we know. NIST's detailed reports contain lots of data. However, data is not the same as information and I think that is the problem with it all. Information is defined as 'that which removes uncertainty' (i.e. 'knowledge') and mere data don't necessarily contain any of it. So it's possible to have an infinite amount of data but no information at all. NIST's excruciatingly long-winded 10,000 page report is a perfect example of prolific data that is void of any useful information. NIST's computer-simulations do not even bother simulating the entire collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and stops at the 'initiation collapse'. If you are happy with what NIST have done, I guess it's up to you. It seems inadequate and incomplete to me though. But hey.

May I ask what your qualification is to label the NIST reports as "void of any useful information"? Or else where did you get this idea from?

Thanks, but I don't need to. Other scientists have already done that for me for reasons they have explained in detail in the scientific literature.

That is new to me and I suspect that you confuse AE911 Truth for scientific literature, but if not please share.

I can show you a radio tower being demolished with thermite but I don't think you'll be particularly convinced by it as its considerably smaller than WTC7. Nevertheless, the video posted a page back shows that thermate can cut through steel with considerable speed showing that it's theoretically possible in practice at least. I think the problem here, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that WTC7 shares uncanny characteristics with a controlled demolition, and so naturally people are going to assume it is a controlled demolition. If you see a duck in the park, would I be required to prove to you that it wasn't a duck? I don't think so. The onus is not upon rational sceptics like us to disprove the NIST-proposition. If the NIST-lobby want the rational public to accept it, the onus is wholly upon them to prove it rationally to us.

I can also show you videos of verinage demolitions that show a collapse very similar to the towers. Or the collapse of a building as result of fire in Delft that fell right into its footprint (whatever this means anyway). None are of course exactly like the WTC, so neither of our examples change the fact that the events on 911 never happened before, CD or not.

And I agree, WTC7 collapse shares characteristics with a CD. But then again, they are both building collapses as result of failing supports, in one case due to fires, in the other due to explosives. And as I already have, I can also point out a couple of very significant differences between the WTC7 collapse and CD.

As for people making the fallacy "It looks similar to CD so it must be CD", well, its not a fallacy for nothing.

Of course, NIST could just end the controversy once-and-for-all and release their models, which they claim mathematically proves their theory, but NIST don't seem willing to do that. They have all the cards and they're holding them very close to their chest. However, I don't expect NIST to release their models any time soon. It seems to me that NIST have no interest in finding the truth. But I think this is to be expected. NIST has been politically compromised. It is an agency of the US government, not an independent scientific research institution, and its first loyalty is to the US government. And its data output cannot be authenticated by ordinary members of the public, which means that it cannot be checked and verified. In no real sense of the word is NIST functioning as a public scientific body and no-one who wants to do any real science can afford to take its data on blind trust as it proposes implicitly that we all do.

I agree that it isn't a very good move to keep their models private. Yet I have to ask, has a group of researchers ever tried to get access to those models but were denied? I can imagine that a genuine group of researches will be able to get access, and I think this is something that can actually be achieved in a court of law.

My challenge was: How do you know that NIST's theory is not make-believe? What independent reality-checks have you performed upon them as all good sceptics are supposed to do? (Just checking your post with a sceptical mind.)

I have read many papers on the 911 collapses. They were not by NIST but mostly by independent parties, and only a very few opposed the theory from NIST. One significant one that comes to mind is the publications from Quintiere. Though his work is kryptonite for truthers as he is saying NIST is wrong in their estimates of the heat from the kerosene, and he claims that fireproofing did not need to be dislodged for the collapse to initiate (which of course can have legal consequences for the constructors of the buildings). He actually build scale models to prove his theory.

Originally posted by Master_007
... this passport was about the only bit of paper ever discovered from any of the three buildings that fell down on 9/11.

So, now that Alfie has shown this to be a ridiculous lie, do you feel like you need to re-evaluate your investigative abilities, in the light of this error?

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Of course, NIST could just end the controversy once-and-for-all and release their models for independent testing and scrutiny, which they claim mathematically proves their theory, but NIST don't seem willing to do that.

One more thing, do you really believe that? If NIST releases their models, and they show that building 7 collapsed due to fire, do you really think it will even put a dent in the truth movement? The publications from Millette also did no such thing. The truth movement is not driven by science, evidence or rational thought. The models will simply be hand waved away as being fake, wrong, or they will be ignored altogether.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Nathan-D
If you think this then you have misconceived the nature of the scientific method. The scientific position is intrinsically skeptical by default and the total burden of proof lies with the advocates of each and every new proposition. The idea that a steel-framed building can collapse globally and suddenly from nothing but fire is indeed a new proposition that's never happened in the history of the real-world before. That's why the burden of proof rests with NIST. Not us

Maybe you missed it, but NIST published extremely detailed reports of the collapses. What more do you want? If you disagree, write a paper that shows what is wrong, get it reviewed, and get it published. That is how science works.

So suppose you tell us where the NIST specificed the total for the concrete in the towers. They did it for the steel, so why not for the concrete?

And were was the center of mass for the tilted top portion of the south tower?

10,000 pages! Yeah sure, real detailed.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Since you are the only person on earth who thinks it is relevant, even among truthers, you must understand I am not putting any more time in beating this dead horse.