Univ of Alaska findings on WTC 7

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12


It's strange, but there are people who just cannot comprehend any fire code and what its goals and methods are.

Fire Engineering Magazine editorialized at the time about the utter lack of forensic rules being used. Some people do very well understand the purpose for having a fire code.

Let's start with...

"FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html

The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What evidence can you cite the cause was something other than fire related failures?

Thermite paint?

Thermite ceiling tiles?

False reports of thermite in WTC dust?

Thermite has never been used in the CD of a high rise building.

Fizzle no flash bombs?

How about no evidence of an audible detention that would indicate a produced shockwave / pressure wave with enough force to cut steel beams?

WTC 7 collapse stated in near silence. No visible shock wave or pressure wave seen in the smoke.

No shrapnel.

No windows blown out.

Dustification?

Nukes?

It's not that AE 9/11 Truth questioned NIST. Lots of legitimate complaints about NIST. (However, note there was a law suit of Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 owners where both sides concluded fire related failures to collapse through research)

Its AE 9/11 Truth has no credibility.

And we haven't even gotten to how a complex detention system survived fires and building damage..... to perform the fictional first ever thermite CD?

The people who investigated this for the Government did not check for explosives or wrongdoing, They had a set believe going in this building collapsed from damage or a fire. I don't even think it crossed their minds, the building was demolished by a second party. They were always going to come out with a theory that matched this believe. The Structural WTC7 designs from 1983 mentions: shear studs on the girders. NIST dismissed this why?, well the girders that shifted out of it's seat, and lead to the collapse ( if you believe NIST) had no studs, as it wasn't specifically pointed been in place at the section of collapse? They ignored what was said the girders have shear studs.

What the hell where they going to check? Random bits of over 1,000,000 tons of rubble. Pretty meaningless.

Videos of the buildings collapsing recorded no audible sound indicative of a pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

There was no indication of steel worked on by demolitions.

No demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured or human remains.

Metallurgical analysis revealed steel sheared or overloaded by weight. No signs at the crystalline or grain boundary level of steel being worked on by demolitions.

The hand searching of ruble did not reveal any parts and fragments of blasting caps, demolitions shrapnel, ignition systems, or detonation systems to test.

The fire fighters, state cop bomb experts, and engineers did not find any evidence of items worked on by demolitions to test for explosives.

Thanks for the false argument.

Do their job. Required to test for explosives during a terrorist event.

NIST Explanations why they did not test for it. The said it be impossible to demolition a building unnoticed they also said

"addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert"

What are they checking years after 9/11. There was nobody standing next to the building recording sound, vibration and bangs! Just because this sound was not picked up does not mean it was not a demolition collapse. Again get it through your head nobody tested anything for demolitions and bombs.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

Start here and work your way through. Literally every part of the conspiracy theory has a mundane, easily understandable explanation. There's a lot more technical explanations available, but these videos dumb it down so that even the most uneducated can understand it. For the collapse video below, which is video 1 in a series, you literally just have to be able to look at straight lines next to other lines that should be straight, but aren't, to understand it. You could probably make a chimpanzee understand it. The building is clearly bowing inward. To argue otherwise you would have to pretend the beams are parallel to the lines, when they're not. You'd literally have to uninvent geometry.

WTC 1/2 Collapse explained

Bldg 7

Office fires don't get hot enough to melt steel, there was nothing inside WTC7 burning that would have seen temperatures get hot enough. Twin Towers was different as it was hit by a missile/ plane jet fuel and the heat may have got hot enough to melt steel?

No one is claiming the buildings collapsed because the steel melted. That's not the official story. You've been lied to about what the official story is, that's the only way truthers know how to fool you is lie. Start from the beginning with an open mind.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What evidence can you cite the cause was something other than fire related failures?

Thermite paint?

Thermite ceiling tiles?

False reports of thermite in WTC dust?

Thermite has never been used in the CD of a high rise building.

Fizzle no flash bombs?

How about no evidence of an audible detention that would indicate a produced shockwave / pressure wave with enough force to cut steel beams?

WTC 7 collapse stated in near silence. No visible shock wave or pressure wave seen in the smoke.

No shrapnel.

No windows blown out.

Dustification?

Nukes?

It's not that AE 9/11 Truth questioned NIST. Lots of legitimate complaints about NIST. (However, note there was a law suit of Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 owners where both sides concluded fire related failures to collapse through research)

Its AE 9/11 Truth has no credibility.

And we haven't even gotten to how a complex detention system survived fires and building damage..... to perform the fictional first ever thermite CD?

The people who investigated this for the Government did not check for explosives or wrongdoing, They had a set believe going in this building collapsed from damage or a fire. I don't even think it crossed their minds, the building was demolished by a second party. They were always going to come out with a theory that matched this believe. The Structural WTC7 designs from 1983 mentions: shear studs on the girders. NIST dismissed this why?, well the girders that shifted out of it's seat, and lead to the collapse ( if you believe NIST) had no studs, as it wasn't specifically pointed been in place at the section of collapse? They ignored what was said the girders have shear studs.

What the hell where they going to check? Random bits of over 1,000,000 tons of rubble. Pretty meaningless.

Videos of the buildings collapsing recorded no audible sound indicative of a pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

There was no indication of steel worked on by demolitions.

No demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured or human remains.

Metallurgical analysis revealed steel sheared or overloaded by weight. No signs at the crystalline or grain boundary level of steel being worked on by demolitions.

The hand searching of ruble did not reveal any parts and fragments of blasting caps, demolitions shrapnel, ignition systems, or detonation systems to test.

The fire fighters, state cop bomb experts, and engineers did not find any evidence of items worked on by demolitions to test for explosives.

Thanks for the false argument.

What are they checking years after 9/11. There was nobody standing next to the building recording sound, vibration and bangs!

This is false. Here's a video that's definitely close enough to hear demo charges, if there were any. There aren't.


Now compare that to this video of dozens of demos, some recorded from much further away, and you can clearly hear the distinctive demo charges in a timed sequence.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

Start here and work your way through. Literally every part of the conspiracy theory has a mundane, easily understandable explanation. There's a lot more technical explanations available, but these videos dumb it down so that even the most uneducated can understand it. For the collapse video below, which is video 1 in a series, you literally just have to be able to look at straight lines next to other lines that should be straight, but aren't, to understand it. You could probably make a chimpanzee understand it. The building is clearly bowing inward. To argue otherwise you would have to pretend the beams are parallel to the lines, when they're not. You'd literally have to uninvent geometry.

WTC 1/2 Collapse explained

Bldg 7

Office fires don't get hot enough to melt steel, there was nothing inside WTC7 burning that would have seen temperatures get hot enough. Twin Towers was different as it was hit by a missile/ plane jet fuel and the heat may have got hot enough to melt steel?

No one is claiming the buildings collapsed because the steel melted. That's not the official story. You've been lied to about what the official story is, that's the only way truthers know how to fool you is lie. Start from the beginning with an open mind.

Thermal expansion was the reason the collapse started. This can only happen if there was no shear studs on the girders and i have explained the fault with this.

Truther people WTC7 got brought down by demolitions/bombs. The steel would break, melt, weaken if this is true?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What evidence can you cite the cause was something other than fire related failures?

Thermite paint?

Thermite ceiling tiles?

False reports of thermite in WTC dust?

Thermite has never been used in the CD of a high rise building.

Fizzle no flash bombs?

How about no evidence of an audible detention that would indicate a produced shockwave / pressure wave with enough force to cut steel beams?

WTC 7 collapse stated in near silence. No visible shock wave or pressure wave seen in the smoke.

No shrapnel.

No windows blown out.

Dustification?

Nukes?

It's not that AE 9/11 Truth questioned NIST. Lots of legitimate complaints about NIST. (However, note there was a law suit of Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 owners where both sides concluded fire related failures to collapse through research)

Its AE 9/11 Truth has no credibility.

And we haven't even gotten to how a complex detention system survived fires and building damage..... to perform the fictional first ever thermite CD?

The people who investigated this for the Government did not check for explosives or wrongdoing, They had a set believe going in this building collapsed from damage or a fire. I don't even think it crossed their minds, the building was demolished by a second party. They were always going to come out with a theory that matched this believe. The Structural WTC7 designs from 1983 mentions: shear studs on the girders. NIST dismissed this why?, well the girders that shifted out of it's seat, and lead to the collapse ( if you believe NIST) had no studs, as it wasn't specifically pointed been in place at the section of collapse? They ignored what was said the girders have shear studs.

What the hell where they going to check? Random bits of over 1,000,000 tons of rubble. Pretty meaningless.

Videos of the buildings collapsing recorded no audible sound indicative of a pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

There was no indication of steel worked on by demolitions.

No demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured or human remains.

Metallurgical analysis revealed steel sheared or overloaded by weight. No signs at the crystalline or grain boundary level of steel being worked on by demolitions.

The hand searching of ruble did not reveal any parts and fragments of blasting caps, demolitions shrapnel, ignition systems, or detonation systems to test.

The fire fighters, state cop bomb experts, and engineers did not find any evidence of items worked on by demolitions to test for explosives.

Thanks for the false argument.

What are they checking years after 9/11. There was nobody standing next to the building recording sound, vibration and bangs!

This is false. Here's a video that's definitely close enough to hear demo charges, if there were any. There aren't.

Now compare that to this video of dozens of demos, some recorded from much further away, and you can clearly hear the distinctive demo charges in a timed sequence.

You showing me pre-planned demolitions. The set up was already there to record noise. Nobody cared on 9/11 as it was happening enough, to record, the noise before the tower fell.

a reply to: Jacobu12

You didn't read the post?

What would randomly checking over 1,000,000 tons of ruble have accomplished.

Especially if there was no demolitions shrapnel, no evidence of anything cut or worked on by demolitions, no fragments of blasting caps to test, no ignition systems to test, no fragments of shape charges to test, metallurgical analysis showed no steel worked on by explosives.

If there was no physical evidence of demolitions, no visible microscope evidence in the crystalline and grain structures of failed components from demolitions, what were they going to chemically test for demolitions?

There are more ways to check for demolitions than chemical tests. There has to be physical evidence of detonation for using a chemical test for a specific compound to be meaningful.

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: face23785

The Seattle Superdome demolition had almost as large a debris pile as one of the WTC towers and it was mostly empty space.

Really? You have some cubic yardage estimates from each site you could link me to I'm sure?

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What evidence can you cite the cause was something other than fire related failures?

Thermite paint?

Thermite ceiling tiles?

False reports of thermite in WTC dust?

Thermite has never been used in the CD of a high rise building.

Fizzle no flash bombs?

How about no evidence of an audible detention that would indicate a produced shockwave / pressure wave with enough force to cut steel beams?

WTC 7 collapse stated in near silence. No visible shock wave or pressure wave seen in the smoke.

No shrapnel.

No windows blown out.

Dustification?

Nukes?

It's not that AE 9/11 Truth questioned NIST. Lots of legitimate complaints about NIST. (However, note there was a law suit of Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 owners where both sides concluded fire related failures to collapse through research)

Its AE 9/11 Truth has no credibility.

And we haven't even gotten to how a complex detention system survived fires and building damage..... to perform the fictional first ever thermite CD?

The people who investigated this for the Government did not check for explosives or wrongdoing, They had a set believe going in this building collapsed from damage or a fire. I don't even think it crossed their minds, the building was demolished by a second party. They were always going to come out with a theory that matched this believe. The Structural WTC7 designs from 1983 mentions: shear studs on the girders. NIST dismissed this why?, well the girders that shifted out of it's seat, and lead to the collapse ( if you believe NIST) had no studs, as it wasn't specifically pointed been in place at the section of collapse? They ignored what was said the girders have shear studs.

What the hell where they going to check? Random bits of over 1,000,000 tons of rubble. Pretty meaningless.

Videos of the buildings collapsing recorded no audible sound indicative of a pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

There was no indication of steel worked on by demolitions.

No demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured or human remains.

Metallurgical analysis revealed steel sheared or overloaded by weight. No signs at the crystalline or grain boundary level of steel being worked on by demolitions.

The hand searching of ruble did not reveal any parts and fragments of blasting caps, demolitions shrapnel, ignition systems, or detonation systems to test.

The fire fighters, state cop bomb experts, and engineers did not find any evidence of items worked on by demolitions to test for explosives.

Thanks for the false argument.

What are they checking years after 9/11. There was nobody standing next to the building recording sound, vibration and bangs!

This is false. Here's a video that's definitely close enough to hear demo charges, if there were any. There aren't.

Now compare that to this video of dozens of demos, some recorded from much further away, and you can clearly hear the distinctive demo charges in a timed sequence.

You showing me pre-planned demolitions. The set up was already there to record noise. Nobody cared on 9/11 as it was happening enough, to record, the noise before the tower fell.

None of this changes the fact there was a camera there that would easily pick up the sounds of demo charges. There were none. You can't change this fact.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

Start here and work your way through. Literally every part of the conspiracy theory has a mundane, easily understandable explanation. There's a lot more technical explanations available, but these videos dumb it down so that even the most uneducated can understand it. For the collapse video below, which is video 1 in a series, you literally just have to be able to look at straight lines next to other lines that should be straight, but aren't, to understand it. You could probably make a chimpanzee understand it. The building is clearly bowing inward. To argue otherwise you would have to pretend the beams are parallel to the lines, when they're not. You'd literally have to uninvent geometry.

WTC 1/2 Collapse explained

Bldg 7

Office fires don't get hot enough to melt steel, there was nothing inside WTC7 burning that would have seen temperatures get hot enough. Twin Towers was different as it was hit by a missile/ plane jet fuel and the heat may have got hot enough to melt steel?

No one is claiming the buildings collapsed because the steel melted. That's not the official story. You've been lied to about what the official story is, that's the only way truthers know how to fool you is lie. Start from the beginning with an open mind.

Thermal expansion was the reason the collapse started. This can only happen if there was no shear studs on the girders and i have explained the fault with this.

Truther people WTC7 got brought down by demolitions/bombs. The steel would break, melt, weaken if this is true?

Building 7 is explained in material I already linked that you refuse to read and watch because you're closed-minded. If you go into this with an open mind, I promise you will understand it. It's not difficult, it doesn't require a great deal of thought or education.

I have no idea what your 2nd paragraph is asking.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

You didn't read the post?

What would randomly checking over 1,000,000 tons have accomplished.

Especially if there was no demolitions shrapnel, no evidence of anything cut or worked on by demolitions, no fragments of blasting caps to test, no ignition systems to test, no shape charges to test, metallurgical analysis showed no steel worked on by explosives. If there was no physical evidence of demolitions, no visible microscope evidence in the crystalline and grain structures of failed component from demolitions, what were they going to chemically test for demolitions? there are more ways to check for demolitions than chemical tests. There has to be physical evidence of detonation for using a chemical test for a specific compound to be meaningful.

NIST did not even do a WTC7 investigation till 2008. They only did so due to demand and inquiry by the public. NIST even said themselves they did not test the steel for explosives or demolitions residue. You making things up to fit your believe.

a reply to: face23785

I like how they ignore the reason why Gage and Jones had to come up with the fizzle no flash / thermite theory.....

a reply to: Jacobu12

They didn't do such a test because there was no reason to. The collapse was explained. When someone is murdered and you find them with a knife sticking out of their heart, you don't go back and run tests for every conceivable other cause of death. You only do that when it's unexplained. Same principle.

a reply to: Jacobu12

What was there to test.

If there was nothing worked on by demolitions.

If there was no demolitions shrapnel which has distinct characteristics.

If the examination of failed components showed no signs of being worked on by demolitions.

If there was no physical evidence of demolitions.

What specific demolition compound were they going to test for? And off what? Again, just randomly among 1,000,000 tons of ruble covered in a toxic soup of dust and soot? How would that give results of anything meaningful?

a reply to: neutronflux

Here's an interview with the coroner from the Flight 93 crash site discussing the comments that have been referenced here:

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

They didn't do such a test because there was no reason to. The collapse was explained. When someone is murdered and you find them with a knife sticking out of their heart, you don't go back and run tests for every conceivable other cause of death. You only do that when it's unexplained. Same principle.

Explained by a government employed group? Architects and engineers not employed by government gain from attacking NIST version of events?

a reply to: Jacobu12

There's literally hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers who heard this explanation and didn't give it a second thought because it's perfectly plausible. There's only a small minority that have a problem with it. I'll go with the majority of the experts who didn't even think it sounded remotely suspicious.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What was there to test.

If there was nothing worked on by demolitions.

If there was no demolitions shrapnel which has distinct characteristics.

If the examination of failed components showed no signs of being worked on by demolitions.

If there was no physical evidence of demolitions.

What specific demolition compound were they going to test for? And off what? Again, just randomly among 1,000,000 tons of ruble covered in a toxic soup of dust and soot? How would that give results of anything meaningful?

I
f there was nothing worked on by demolitions: What you trying to say?

If there was no demolitions shrapnel which has distinct characteristics: Are you stubborn or stupid? Who was testing for this? I already told you nobody at the debris field site was looking for demolition evidence, not then and not ever.



If the examination of failed components showed no signs of being worked on by demolitions: What you talking about again?

If there was no physical evidence of demolitions? explained already you asking the same question and repeating yourself

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

There's literally hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers who heard this explanation and didn't give it a second thought because it's perfectly plausible. There's only a small minority that have a problem with it. I'll go with the majority of the experts who didn't even think it sounded remotely suspicious.

Like who has stepped forward besides the tiny panel who investigated for NIST. Many of those professionals just accept the official narrative, as they are of this mindset themselves. The architects and engineers who oppose have taken the time to look into this and find NIST version to be not correct.