yup ... indeed ..

reply to post by Another_Nut


Just wondering, have you ever read the NIST report? It is stuffed with models and calculations, it touches about any critique anyone has ever come up with, without most people even realizing that NIST already considered their idea.

I am not saying their report is perfect, but it is by far the best analysis on the WTC collapse initiation. I am not saying it is the holy truth, but their analysis makes sense, as it matches the video and photographic evidence. Explosives don't. Made up secret weapons, well, sure, they match anything, as nobody knows what they should look like.

I am all open to reasonable critique on the NIST report. But most critique only shows that the person expressing it has no clue about the contents of the report. Just take the direct denial that ANOK shows about the inward bowing. It has been observed on litteraly all video or photographic evidence available. We know for sure that something had been pulling those columns inward. We know explosives can not do that. Why invent all kind of crazy ideas while sagging trussen can explain it too? If you understand that concept that is.

Originally posted by Iwinder


All I am saying is you cannot call photographic/ video evidence bunk any more.....it is not possible.

I am not being combative and appreciate your response to my post.

Regards, Iwinder

You can if people don't understand what they see in the picture the OP is a prime example none of those building were the same construction as the towers or the same height they were not struck by high speed aircraft or falling debris and most of them had concrete cores.

It's an apples WITH apples game I will use this example yet again using the logic of the OP it's like saying this could win NASCAR



After all it's a car it has an engine so it could win , do you see what I mean.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Iwinder


All I am saying is you cannot call photographic/ video evidence bunk any more.....it is not possible.

I am not being combative and appreciate your response to my post.

Regards, Iwinder

You can if people don't understand what they see in the picture the OP is a prime example none of those building were the same construction as the towers or the same height they were not struck by high speed aircraft or falling debris and most of them had concrete cores.

It's an apples WITH apples game I will use this example yet again using the logic of the OP it's like saying this could win NASCAR



After all it's a car it has an engine so it could win , do you see what I mean.

edit on 9-5-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

First off the op was referring to Building seven period, the towers have nothing to do with this thread.

Please stay on topic if you don't mind because most of us have done so.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Just wondering, have you ever read the NIST report? It is stuffed with models and calculations, it touches about any critique anyone has ever come up with, without most people even realizing that NIST already considered their idea.

I am not saying their report is perfect, but it is by far the best analysis on the WTC collapse initiation. I am not saying it is the holy truth, but their analysis makes sense, as it matches the video and photographic evidence. Explosives don't. Made up secret weapons, well, sure, they match anything, as nobody knows what they should look like.

I am all open to reasonable critique on the NIST report. But most critique only shows that the person expressing it has no clue about the contents of the report. Just take the direct denial that ANOK shows about the inward bowing. It has been observed on litteraly all video or photographic evidence available. We know for sure that something had been pulling those columns inward. We know explosives can not do that. Why invent all kind of crazy ideas while sagging trussen can explain it too? If you understand that concept that is.

Again all I see is you saying "trust me its basic physics"

You still have addressed nothing.

we were not taking about "collapse initiation"

We are talking about collapse.

A collapse which nist says is a "given" ( aka trust us its basic physics ,no you cant see our model)

Now care to quit avoiding questions put to you? (see my last post)

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Iwinder
let me know after reading it how you feel about photographic/ video footage now and what lengths the people in power will go to.

Actually you are the one who should read it, just what are they being charged with? It actually points out how silly the claim:

Have any of you noticed the Police/Government are doing all they can to ban or make it a crime to take a photograph of anything happening.

Is, as they are being charged with destroying video evidence....

Big big fail on your part and everyone here can see that, busted for tampering with video evidence.......I take it your reading skills are not the best.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


My point is basically that the truth you see in a photograph/video depends on the interpretation of the observer. Sure you can reach a consensus, but especially on vague photos/videos this can still be wrong. It also depends a lot on the knowledge of the observer. A group of rocket scientists will have no clue when they look at an MRI scan of a brain.

So it is not as black and white as you portray it.

reply to post by Iwinder


Yes and MY points and previous posts on this thread cover the towers and WTC 7, I mention struck by aircraft (the towers) or by falling debris (wtc 7)

None of those buildings had the same construction as the WTC buildings is that SIMPLE enough for you to understand!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Yes and MY points and previous posts on this thread cover the towers and WTC 7, I mention struck by aircraft (the towers) or by falling debris (wtc 7)

None of those buildings had the same construction as the WTC buildings is that SIMPLE enough for you to understand!!!

edit on 9-5-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

None of them had the same construction yet they all succomed to total global symmetrical collapse.

something that hadnt happened before or since

Imagine that

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Iwinder

 

My point is basically that the truth you see in a photograph/video depends on the interpretation of the observer. Sure you can reach a consensus, but especially on vague photos/videos this can still be wrong. It also depends a lot on the knowledge of the observer. A group of rocket scientists will have no clue when they look at an MRI scan of a brain.

So it is not as black and white as you portray it.

Vague photos/ videos?

They seem crystal clear to me and my wife and many others here on this site.

Perhaps you should see your optometrist ASAP.

So now that we are talking building 7 you claim that the bulk of posters are now lacking the knowledge to observe and trust their eyes?

Keep reaching and by all means keep posting as this is getting interesting.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Another_Nut

Yep imagine that:-)

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Another_Nut


You will never see me claim that it is basic physics. That is one of the one liners from other people on this forum. My position actually is that it is such a complex subject that without very good training you can't say anything sensible about it.

If you want to talk about the collapse itself, there are several model out there. I never seen anyone come with prove it is not possible (just the one-liners "its basic physics"). There are even videos out there that show demolitions using just initiation event and gravity only.

reply to post by Iwinder


This is exactly what I am talking about. What is your and your wives experience with building collapses due to fires? What is your and your wives experience with structural engineering?

My guess is none. You do not possess any divine knowledge. So if you see anything that is not right according to you, we have a method to prove this. Though it requires years of study on the subject. And with study I do not mean browsing the internet, but I mean solving physics problems, and working with mathematical models. That is the way we really progress. It’s not looking at a picture or video and saying “I don’t believe this”

i remember pictures of a bomber flying into the empire state building in the 40s it was a b25 bomber and it was open a few days later ? they dont make them like they used to

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

You will never see me claim that it is basic physics. That is one of the one liners from other people on this forum. My position actually is that it is such a complex subject that without very good training you can't say anything sensible about it.

If you want to talk about the collapse itself, there are several model out there. I never seen anyone come with prove it is not possible (just the one-liners "its basic physics"). There are even videos out there that show demolitions using just initiation event and gravity only.

I know the videos or which you speak

You mean after they remove most of the supports and walls from the lower portion of the building.

Then they can initate at collapse.

But try that with an intact building

You have failed to refute anything I've posted.

Good day

reply to post by Another_Nut

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

Do you also know that engineers didn't have to take into consideration thermal loading on structural members because of fire that's only just changing now

Or that many countries had a look at construction codes for fire after 9/11.

WTC 7 Structural damage due to falling debris, fires on various floors an unfortunate steel design due to the open plan foyer 7 hours of fires and the rest is history.

reply to post by Another_Nut


Of course I fail, just look at my sig. You have a conviction. It is not based on any science, else you would be slapping my head with paper and mathematical models. Instead you try to slap me with petty talk. Sorry, that won't work.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Of course I fail, just look at my sig. You have a conviction. It is not based on any science, else you would be slapping my head with paper and mathematical models. Instead you try to slap me with petty talk. Sorry, that won't work.

Geez again with the terrible reading comprehension on this site.

I didn't say you failed.

I said you failed to refute anything I've said

You " failed" in this post .when you didn't (failed) to respond or refute my claims or evidence with anything other than "you don't understand"

My beliefs are based on evidence and sound scientific principle.

Not some government report. And faith in an agency (nist) that has told you they were lying.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

Do you also know that engineers didn't have to take into consideration thermal loading on structural members because of fire that's only just changing now

Or that many countries had a look at construction codes for fire after 9/11.

WTC 7 Structural damage due to falling debris, fires on various floors an unfortunate steel design due to the open plan foyer 7 hours of fires and the rest is history.

The firefighters were also measuring the LEAN of the building.

Leaning buildings don't fall straight down

Period

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Iwinder

 

This is exactly what I am talking about. What is your and your wives experience with building collapses due to fires? What is your and your wives experience with structural engineering?

My guess is none. You do not possess any divine knowledge. So if you see anything that is not right according to you, we have a method to prove this. Though it requires years of study on the subject. And with study I do not mean browsing the internet, but I mean solving physics problems, and working with mathematical models. That is the way we really progress. It’s not looking at a picture or video and saying “I don’t believe this”

Well said, so where do we go from here? Now do you posses divine knowledge to help us understand why building 7 collapsed as it did?

Please keep in mind the collapse was due to fire.

You seem so logical please help us to understand why this happened.

Star for your post quoted.

Regards, Iwinder

The NIST report is just a hypothesis (proposed explanation), and they have admitted this themselves.

So their findings cannot be taken as being accurate, especially when a lot of NIST's calculations were guesses, and especially when they did not do a thorough investigation.

They excluded a lot of evidence that would have potentially given a different a different outcome to their reports.

They are either the most incompetent group of people, or they are complicit.

Funnily enough, there was incompetence from everyone connected to the US government in relation to 9/11.
So if their incompetence in relation to 9/11 is indeed real, then none of their 'reports' can ever be trusted.