NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by Azriphale
or a petition to the mods wouldnt go astray.

I have already complained to no avail.

Let's put it in another perspective.

If I came to ATS and claimed:

"I have irrefutable proof that the towers were demolished using controlled demolisions and under no circumstances will I release my proof and evidence. But, BsBray11, Valhall, Spoon and Slap Nutz have written this neat little report for you to read that shows how I have proven my statements. That should be enough for you. The evidence is in there. The evidence is there for the world to see."

Is that acceptable to people? Is that acceptable to ATS? Would I be riddiculed out of ATS and banned?

Then why is it appropriate for Seanm to continue to lie on this board virtually claiming the same thing?

I'm almost done with ATS over this. The biassness could not be more clear.

Originally posted by seanm
You are unbelievable. Your "movement" has had those documents since March 2007: 911research.wtc7.net...

Why do you guys keep misrepresenting the facts?

The unbelievable one is you. Those are architectural drawings. Where are the mechanical, structural, plumbing etc. drawings?

It's time to stop with the evasions, Griff, and start to bring evidence to the table to support your assertions.

Let's drop back a bit. What, pray tell, ARE my assertions? So far, I believe all I've done in this thread is show you your errors when it comes to engineering, engineering terms, construction etc. WHAT ARE MY ASSERTIONS?

Originally posted by seanm
What actually happened is the the building started to collapse and it's acceleration due to gravity quickly exceeded the speed of the tipping of the top section AND the pivot point, the part of the two sections that broke apart last causing the tipping to begin with broke. At that point is when the full mass of 110,000 tons of the top section caused the collapse of the building.

WOW. Holey run around batman.

So, the building started to collapse and outsped the top section and pivot point, but the mass of top section falling onto the building is what caused the collapse? Which is it?

This has been explained innumerable times and it is surprising that you don't know it.

Explained and sufficiently explained are two entirely different things. Like Seanm physics as oppossed to real world physics.

reply to post by Griff


Griff,

They (meaning debunkers) dont want people asking questions to find why there are discrepancies or anomalies in the so called official story.

So they resort to obfuscation to frustrate those making legitimate inquiries.

If you leave thats what all these dysfunctional irrational trolls want and they win.

Originally posted by seanm
On what basis should we accept your assertion? Have you hidden your peer-reviewed forensic investigation from us?

Has NIST? Oh that's right, none of their reports are peer reviewed. But, I'm sure you'll come back claiming that they have. Even though no one but them has the construction documents, the thousands of photos and video and no one is able to reproduce their conclusions. But, in your mind, it will be peer reviewed I'm sure.

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by etshrtslr
reply to post by Griff

 

Griff,

They (meaning debunkers) dont want people asking questions to find why there are discrepancies or anomalies in the so called official story.

So they resort to obfuscation to frustrate those making legitimate inquiries.

If you leave thats what all these dysfunctional irrational trolls want and they win.

Well, I used to think ATS was above this. I guess I was wrong. BTW, I didn't even get a response to my complaint. Not even a "we have decided to do nothing". Thanks a lot ATS.

So, it's not just the troll that has me wanting to leave. It's the total biasness of ATS.

Question: Why are no "truthers" made mod of the 9/11 forums? We have plenty of "debunker" mods here.

But, I'll probably be the one who gets booted for causing "board drama".

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


I understand your frustration with said poster.

I view him strictly for entertainment value at this point simply because he has shown himself completely devoid of any physics or engineering acumen and you have repeaditly debunked his wild and incomprehensible assertations in those respective disciplines.

Seeing his response to other poster trying to distort and misrepresent what they have said is a clear sign of frustration and desperation on his part.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by seanm

So, would you like to retract this statement of yours: "Now, please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane hitting it."

Be my guest.

Thanks for the laugh seanm.

The laugh's on you.

Remember I was the one asking you the question in that post to demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane impacting it.

Sure do.

You obviously did not answer my question nor do you seem to know the difference between a question and a statement.

I know you goofed by asking that question.

I have clearly stated in my recent post that a few well placed explosive would cause the collapse of WTC 7 and that no plane was needed.

Actually, if you read carefully, you asked the question. "Now, please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane hitting it."

So do you now care to answer my question as to how the WTC 7 collapsed without a plane impacting it?

I did. You realized you made a mistake that I called you on

Remember now that NIST has no evidence of how WTC collapsed just a working hypothesis that they admit could change throughout the investigation.

Thats' right. But you failed to take note of my answer: "It provides its working hypothesis. We've known that since 2005. I've been given absolutely no reason to doubt the hypothesis."

You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking the question correctly to begin with, to wit: "Please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed."

Better luck next time.

Originally posted by seanm
Thats' right. But you failed to take note of my answer: "It provides its working hypothesis. We've known that since 2005. I've been given absolutely no reason to doubt the hypothesis."

You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking the question correctly to begin with, to wit: "Please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed."

I finally understand the whole point to all your posting.
You are all about the 'semen-antics'

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by seanm

So, would you like to retract this statement of yours: "Now, please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane hitting it."

Be my guest.

Thanks for the laugh seanm.

The laugh's on you.

Remember I was the one asking you the question in that post to demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane impacting it.

Sure do.

You obviously did not answer my question nor do you seem to know the difference between a question and a statement.

I know you goofed by asking that question.

I have clearly stated in my recent post that a few well placed explosive would cause the collapse of WTC 7 and that no plane was needed.

Actually, if you read carefully, you asked the question. "Now, please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane hitting it."

So do you now care to answer my question as to how the WTC 7 collapsed without a plane impacting it?

I did. You realized you made a mistake that I called you on

Remember now that NIST has no evidence of how WTC collapsed just a working hypothesis that they admit could change throughout the investigation.

Thats' right. But you failed to take note of my answer: "It provides its working hypothesis. We've known that since 2005. I've been given absolutely no reason to doubt the hypothesis."

You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking the question correctly to begin with, to wit: "Please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed."

Better luck next time.

Thank you again for the laugh. I might have to start paying you for the cheap entertainment you are providing me.

I will note for all concerned that once again you have resorted to obfuscation and that is my reason for quoting your entire post lest you decide to edit it.

How did I goof asking the question? Please elaborate.

What mistake did I make by asking a question as to how did WTC 7 collapse without a plane impacting it? Please elaborate.

We've known that since 2005. I've been given absolutely no reason to doubt the hypothesis.

Who exactly knew and what did they know? Please provide evidence and not a hypothesis!

Interesting how you are now relying on hypothesis instead of evidence.

You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking the question correctly to begin with, to wit: "Please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed."

What

No trouble on my part and another example of obfuscation on yours.

Your original quote:

Now, please demonstrate that WTC 7 needed to have a plane hit it for it to collapse.

My response:

Now, please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane hitting it.

Then I stated in a subsequent post:

it would not need a plane to impact the building to cause a collapse, just a few well placed explosives.

Thanks again for the cheap entertainment



[edit on 23-10-2007 by etshrtslr]

Wow, thanks to seanm's brilliant deductive logic i have had a real breakthrough!!

The planes didnt need to cause the collapse because allah did it!!

Can't you guys figure that out?!?! We don't need scientific facts, just wild claims flatly asserted again and again and again!

I think many of you are missing the point, This affirms what critics of the report have been trying to say for years. The 10,000 page report is meant to be held up as a thourough professional analysis to the public, but it is actually nothing of the sort, and doesn't come anywhere close to explaining the global collapse of the building.

The global collapse DOES need explaining. Her response is like someone saying, "We diagramed the whole scenario up to the hummingbird flying up to the concrete wall, so proving how the hummingbird actually went THROUGH the wall is redundant."

Come on, is anyone going to buy that? The whole problem is that the proposal that hummingbirds can fly through walls is ILLOGICAL, not that a humming bird can fly up to a wall.

The collapse of the upper part of the building is improbable, and not consistant with the data, but it is not impossible. What is impossible, is that the top part would have stopped tipping over and suddenly smashed the whole building.

Essentially, the theory is that a floor sagged, fell chaotically with enough force to crush all of the office equipment, pulverize the concrete on the next floor, break it lose from it's connections to the core and perimeter columns, break the perimeter columns inward and also produce enough air outward to hurl them hundreds of feet through the air, and pull apart the core, even though it was no longer CONNECTED to the core. And it somehow had enough mass to continue down and pulverize the next floor, even though much material was ejected outwards, and the concrete(the heaviest part of the floor by far was turned to dust and went airborne)

These are the kinds of illogical things we are talking about when we are asking why the NIST cannot model the collapse, and this is the reason the NIST cannot model the collapse, and won't even put out a theory...it's impossible. (not to mention the molten steel, but that's just another in the many layers of absurdity the OS is buried under)

The theory simply does not work.

It's interesting how every 9-11 board I post on has someone who claims to be a "structual engineer" or have some sort of professional training on the subject, but goes on to make claims that are simply absurd.

A tall skyscraper is a system, and like any system, if you introduce weight or stress incorectly or take away one part the system the entire system fails.

If you were really an engineer, you should know that buildings are over-designed and have a little thing called "redundancy". "apply weight incorrectly? The real engineers who designed it said it could withstand multiple plane impacts, and could still stand HURRICANE winds while half of the perimeter columns arnd the base were severed.

A large aircraft, which adds a lot of weights, and slams into a building taking away a large portion of the frame will result in failure. Then the results of this failure componds to additional failure starting a chain reaction.

Again, the real engineers who designed the towers say the perimter columns could withstand a 2000% increase in the live load they were designed to carry. Both the core and perimeter columns could withstand many times their required loads. If what you were saying is true, demolishing buildings would be very easy, and would not require million dollar contracts to CONTROLLED DEMOLOTION companies.

Due to the linear shape and design of the towers and being aware of how static load works working in the structural engineering industry, I expect what happen to the towers as soon as the aircrafts hit. I sat there in awe as they stood as long as they did, with the smoke billowing from the building, knowing the intense heat at which jet fuel burns.

I'm sure you expected it, though it has never happened before in history, and many skyscrapers have burned much longer than the WTC. Jet fuel actually burns rather cooly, and would not have added anything at all to the overall temperature of the fires. It also burned off in a matter of minutes.

I do not believe they were rigged with explosives. If they were, the whole colapse would have start right away, similar to the look of a controled explosive for large bulding. They would have also been lower, to ensure the job was correct.

What do you mean it would have started right away? It wouldn't start until the demo techs pressed the button. And the buildings didn't take much longer to fall than total free fall. You can also clearly see squibs being ejected from the buildings.

And you have no basis to assert that they would have started the controlled demolotion from the bottom, absolutely none.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by seanm

Remember now that NIST has no evidence of how WTC collapsed just a working hypothesis that they admit could change throughout the investigation.

Thats' right. But you failed to take note of my answer: "It provides its working hypothesis. We've known that since 2005. I've been given absolutely no reason to doubt the hypothesis."

You would have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking the question correctly to begin with, to wit: "Please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed."

Better luck next time.

How did I goof asking the question? Please elaborate.

What mistake did I make by asking a question as to how did WTC 7 collapse without a plane impacting it? Please elaborate.

Sure.

It started with the following exchange:

Jerseygeek: "So how did building number seven collapse, when it wasn't hit by a plane?"

seanm: "Please demonstrate that WTC 7 needed to have a plane hit it for it to collapse."

etshrtslr: "Please show the NIST report detailing the cause of the collapse for WTC 7."

seanm: "Now, please demonstrate that WTC 7 needed to have a plane hit it for it to collapse."

etshtslr: "Now, please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed without a plane hitting it."

seanm: "The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it would have to have a plane hit it in order for it to collapse."

etshtslr: "Secondly it would not need a plane to impact the building to cause a collapse, just a few well placed explosives."

You and jerseygeek both qualified your statements and questions with "without a plane hitting it." What part of that qualifier confuses you? Why did you think I responded with the obvious statement I did? As I wrote, you would have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking the question correctly to begin with, to wit: "Please demonstrate how WTC 7 collapsed."

We've known that since 2005. I've been given absolutely no reason to doubt the hypothesis.

Who exactly knew and what did they know? Please provide evidence and not a hypothesis!

Try to read carefully. I said quite clearly: "I've been given absolutely no reason to doubt the hypothesis."

Interesting how you are now relying on hypothesis instead of evidence.

The evidence is the root of the hypothesis. No evidence of explosives has ever been been found despite the numerous studies done since October 2001. None, zero, zilch, nada. No evidence of explosives was found in the investigations of WTC 1 and 2.

IF you have evidence of explosives then you would be a hero. But you have no evidence of explosives. Too bad.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Azriphale
or a petition to the mods wouldnt go astray.

I have already complained to no avail.

Let's put it in another perspective.

If I came to ATS and claimed:

"I have irrefutable proof that the towers were demolished using controlled demolisions and under no circumstances will I release my proof and evidence. But, BsBray11, Valhall, Spoon and Slap Nutz have written this neat little report for you to read that shows how I have proven my statements. That should be enough for you. The evidence is in there. The evidence is there for the world to see."

Is that acceptable to people? Is that acceptable to ATS? Would I be riddiculed out of ATS and banned?

Then why is it appropriate for Seanm to continue to lie on this board virtually claiming the same thing?

Reading comprehension is a serious problem with some of you. It is your obligation to refute the evidence of the investigations contained in the NIST, FEMA, and ASCE reports if you do not believe them. You all cannot pretend they do not exist. You cannot claim they do not represent the facts without refuting them.

I am challenging your beliefs and your lack of knowledge of what the evidence is and tells us. And I am showing you the burden of proof remains on you to bring evidence to the table to support your claims.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
What actually happened is the the building started to collapse and it's acceleration due to gravity quickly exceeded the speed of the tipping of the top section AND the pivot point, the part of the two sections that broke apart last causing the tipping to begin with broke. At that point is when the full mass of 110,000 tons of the top section caused the collapse of the building.

So, the building started to collapse and outsped the top section and pivot point, but the mass of top section falling onto the building is what caused the collapse? Which is it?

Try to read carefully. The top section started to tip BEFORE the building started to collapse.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
reply to post by Griff

 

Griff,

They (meaning debunkers) dont want people asking questions to find why there are discrepancies or anomalies in the so called official story.

Ask all the questions you want. Just stop pretending you never got the answers.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
On what basis should we accept your assertion? Have you hidden your peer-reviewed forensic investigation from us?

Has NIST? Oh that's right, none of their reports are peer reviewed. But, I'm sure you'll come back claiming that they have.

Even though no one but them has the construction documents, the thousands of photos and video and no one is able to reproduce their conclusions. But, in your mind, it will be peer reviewed I'm sure.

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Griff]

Dodge noted.

Originally posted by seanm
I am challenging your beliefs and your lack of knowledge of what the evidence is and tells us.

I am challegenging YOU. Bring to the table the evidence then. Not some report telling us what the evidence is. Reading comprehension is not our problem.

And if you refuse for the umpteenth time, we will all know who is the one without knowledge.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OR SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT IT!!!!!!! Period.

Originally posted by seanm
Ask all the questions you want. Just stop pretending you never got the answers.

So, where are the structural drawings then? If we're pretending to not get the answers.

Plain and simple. Until you supply us with these, then you are lying that the evidence is for the world to see.

And I still can't believe ATS is letting you knowingly lie on their site.



[edit on 10/24/2007 by Griff]