My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The NIST report does not explain the collapse of the towers, it provides an hypothesis for collapse initiation.

In all that text it comes down to 'sagging trusses pulled in the columns'.

Something that has not been demonstrated as possible. Until it is the NIST report will remain an hypothesis, not fact, not even a theory.

That's right. Like the "911 Commission" and the Warren Commission, NIST had only one purpose in their 911 report: to cover up the crime and make a feeble attempt at explaining the inexplicable. Anyone with a critical mind can immediately see that the NIST report was a sham to appease the average American Idiot.

From their own website:

"NIST is the federal technology agency that works with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards."

These neocon cohorts are in the same bed with FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security. Do you OS'ers really think these people are your friends and out for your best interests?

reply to post by GenRadek

Well whenever I listen or read "truther's claims about how the towers needed to be rigged, and the fire dept was in on the demolitions, and the NYPD was in on it,

Nobody I know thinks the fire department or the police were in on the 9/11 false flag atrocity. This is strictly your conspiracy theory strawman.

Here is what the brave firemen of New York really say;



Fireman One, "We made it outside...we made it - what one block...two blocks...boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."

Fireman Two, "We made it about two blocks and we started running...floor by floor it started popping out..."

Fireman One, "It was like, it was as if they had detonators, detonators, as if it was planted to take out a building...boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."

Fireman Two regarding the boom, boom, boom, "Yeah detonators....all the way down... I was watching it and running.




At 3:17 fireman One says, "The thing is, you don't understand there maybe more....anyone of these building can blow up....this ain't done yet"

Fireman Two says, "You are in the building trying to help people and each side is blowing in on you...I don't think it can get any worse than this"

Who do we believe? You, an OS'er, or people who were actually risking their lives to save others?

People died on 9/11 and you talk rubbish it.

There you have it, witness statements from trained professionals who deal with fires in buildings everyday. They know how deal with all kinds of explosions but not demolitions. Were their witness statements ever taken by the authorities?

Originally posted by Nathan-D
This isn't true. NIST have refused to release the parameters for their computer simulations for WTC7 because, according to them, it would 'jeopardize public safety'. You can see it [url=http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf]here

So you keep saying, but we have yet to see any objective rational, or observational proof of this assertion. Seriously, how can I possibly ignore evidence that nobody has presented in the first place? What evidence have NIST provided to support their theory of a fire-induced collapse for WTC7 aside from computer simulations? Please, tell me. The only evidence that I ever hear about is the penthouse collapse, which ironically, supports a controlled demolition, although apart from that, I haven't heard anything else. What evidence? Give us something.

Have you ever taken a look at those reports at all? There is a whole chapter containing only photographic evidence. And you just out of the blue claim there isn't any evidence at all.

Oh really? Because I'm a layman all my arguments are therefore automatically rendered null and void? If you say so, PLB. But of course, I can only speculate as to how the NIST's modellers might explain away this fundamental physical anomaly of why the collapse of WTC7 does not look like the collapse in their models. They hold all the cards and are playing them very close to their chests. In my view that is a very good way to play the games of poker and power-politics but it is a very bad way to play the game of science. At the end of the day though we are left with NIST still not having substantiated its claims for its claims with reasoned argument or real evidence and therefore, as a conscientious scientific sceptic, I am obliged not to accept them.

Yes, you arguments are pretty much useless. Try going to a brain surgery forum telling how they are all wrong and you know better. Thats about the same.

Sure you can have done some actual studying and have some actual constructive critique. But you are just hand waving. You don't give any reason at all why the model is not close enough to reality. You just look at a picture and say that in your opinion it doesn't look good enough. Really. Nobody cares.

Saying that I thought you sounded delirious is not name-calling.

You sounds like a hypocritical metal patient with halve a brain. Thats not name calling because I say that you just sound like it?

Haven't I already named them? Here's one to get your chops around: 'MOMENTUM TRANSFER ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC1' -- Gordon Ross. Enjoy!

I have looked at that crap before. Its just so wrong. To call that scientific literature just shows how much of a laymen you are. And somehow you think that you are qualified to know that NIST is wrong.

To me it is overly clear. You know nothing of NIST's work. You have a political reason to reject it, not a scientific one. Else you would have been consistent and rejected the junk from Ross for sure.

You studied at a university? Gosh. Life is full of surprises, isn't it? And there was me thinking you were a high-school dro... never-mind.

Yes, making assumptions without any evidence is something you do quite often. It is not at all uncommon to make up all kind of bad properties for people you don't agree with. It makes it easier to cope with the fact that you can't answer the questions and the fallacies the person is pointing out.

Logical proofs are as possible in science as they are in any other field of enquiry or determination to which logic can be applied. It is only absolute proofs that are not available from science. But relative proofs are. Those are invariably contextual and so long as the context in which they are sought is specified they can be obtained in principle. In practice it is a matter of proving something beyond reasonable doubt and in the case of NIST's hypothesis the fact remains that this has not been done. You say that you have enough evidence, but why haven't you presented any of it yet? Why keep us sitting on the edge of our seats in anticipation waiting for this 'evidence' that you have yet to show us that cuts through the matter decisively?

Read the NIST report. And give me a concrete example of evidence you would accept but thats not in the report.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Read the NIST report. And give me a concrete example of evidence you would accept but thats not in the report

How about some evidence that sagging trusses can pull in columns? That's not in the NIST report.

Or how the collapses continued after initiation. That's not in the NIST report either.

No I don't. I just need to know the truth for myself first before choosing to believe in something and that usually entails doing an arduous amount of research. Your argument essentially comes down to this: 'I believe NIST because they are the experts'. Your whole case rests on the presumed authority of certain defined "experts" who purport to believe in a fire-collapse and whose assertions you require to be treated as sacrosanct. This supine dependency on the expressed personal opinions of selected expert authorities is the reason for my calling the OS belief-system an authoritarian cult a while back. When people are expected to believe something, not because they can see for themselves that it is so but just because some special group of appointed "experts" say it is so, then that is an authoritarian cult by any reliable dictionary's definitions of the terms.

The track record of those authorities (NIST, universities etc) has been "slightly" better than anonymous truthers on the internet.

But I am easy to convert. I believe it until someone shows it to be wrong. So far you are failing miserably, so are the rest of the truthers. For example Quintiere did succeed in that. Do you understand why?

But PLB, they haven't explained the total collapses, have they? That's the point. *Smacks forehead* Seriously, I'd probably get further talking to a brick-wall.

I see you are not that familiar with the subject. You have collapse initiation, and the collapse itself. If you can prevent initiation, the collapse itself will automatically not follow. So for NIST it is not interesting to investigate the collapse itself, they just want to know how to prevent collapse. I can assure you that a brick wall would not have been able to explain this to you.

reply to post by ANOK


How about answering my simply physics question? What happens to the top section once the collapse has initiated? So at one moment the top section is stationary, and a small period later it is moving. Does momentum increase, stay the same, or decrease. Keep in mind conservation of momentum.

reply to post by -PLB-

Read the NIST report. And give me a concrete example of evidence you would accept but thats not in the report.

Sorry, but I’ve wasted enough of my life on reading your cult’s half-baked and phoney propaganda already. If you have some new hard scientific evidence that actually demonstrates the truth of your outlandish claims for which abundant counter-evidence already exists, then I am willing to look at it but otherwise not.

I have looked at that crap before. Its just so wrong.

I’m glad you understand what’s wrong with it. Care to explain?

Yes, you arguments are pretty much useless. Try going to a brain surgery forum telling how they are all wrong and you know better.

The scientific method requires us to ignore persons and pay attention to the content of what they are saying instead. The question of whether I am a layman is irrelevant in science. All that matters from a scientific standpoint is veracity. Dismissing any and all of what people say simply because they are not experts as you are doing, is not only unscientific – but is also self-stupefying as it automatically blocks you from receiving what information their point of view might otherwise be able to give you. Prejudging these people’s point of view as worthless only deprives you of its value, not anyone else. Really PLB, all you have left is argument from authority, and it’s quite sad, you know. How long are you going to keep up this prevarication? When are you going to show us some real evidence for a change rather than endlessly obfuscating and diverting?

Have you ever taken a look at those reports at all? There is a whole chapter containing only photographic evidence. And you just out of the blue claim there isn't any evidence at all.

You have yet to ‘specify’ what this evidence is, have you? What ‘photographic evidence’ are you referring to and how does it support a fire-induced collapse?

You don't give any reason at all why the model is not close enough to reality.

Yes I have. It doesn’t look the same in the models as it does in real-life. It isn’t rocket-science to grasp and neither is it a matter of interpretation. It’s a self-evident fact. Take a look at the video I generously posted for you on the first page.

It makes it easier to cope with the fact that you can’t answer the questions and the fallacies the person is pointing out.

If you had the courage to be honest with yourself I think you would see that this is exactly what you are doing. Unconscious psychological projection springs to mind here.

Thats not name calling because I say that you just sound like it?

So you do consider my saying that you sounded a ‘bit delirious’ as name-calling then? I can only say I disagree. Your sensibilities do seem a bit touchy today, PLB.

You have collapse initiation, and the collapse itself. If you can prevent initiation, the collapse itself will automatically not follow.

Congratulations on stating the dumbfoundingly obvious PLB. But the point we are trying to point out to you here (and failing spectacularly) is that NIST have not explained the total collapse of the buildings. Therefore the collapse of the buildings (i.e. how they managed to collapse through themselves with such extraordinary velocity) remains unexplained by NIST. I hope that helps.

How about answering my simply physics question? What happens to the top section once the collapse has initiated? So at one moment the top section is stationary, and a small period later it is moving. Does momentum increase, stay the same, or decrease. Keep in mind conservation of momentum.

If it is experiencing any resistance from the static-mass below then it should start pivoting away from its center of gravity in what is known as ‘unstable equilibrium’ and once this starts to happen then it continues until it reaches ‘stable equilibrium’ or if it is counteracted by an equal and opposite force. In fact this is observed in the videos momentarily for about 2 seconds for WTC2 before the top-section disappears into a cloud of dust. If the top-section of WTC2 did collapse straight down through the tower as we are to be believe, then it must have miraculously straightened up somehow. Also, remarkably, the top-section (that was pivoting outwards) is absent from the rubble-pile afterwards. One can only logically assume that it was blown to smithereens in mid-air.

reply to post by Nathan-D


So your position is that all the current evidence is false because you think it is, and the only way you'll accept any evidence that supports the official story is if it's brand new evidence? Do you not see where you lost it in this train of thinking?

reply to post by Varemia

So your position is that all the current evidence is false because you think it is, and the only way you'll accept any evidence that supports the official story is if it's brand new evidence?

No – I have just seen no real evidence to convince me that WTC7 was destroyed by 8-10 floors of fire. That's all. If you have any such evidence, don't hesitate to post it, otherwise kindly please stop wasting my time.

Originally posted by ANOK


In all that text it comes down to 'sagging trusses pulled in the columns'.

You lie.

It does not say that.

DO some reaserch.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by Varemia

 

So your position is that all the current evidence is false because you think it is, and the only way you'll accept any evidence that supports the official story is if it's brand new evidence?

No – I have just seen no real evidence to convince me that WTC7 was destroyed by 8-10 floors of fire. That's all. If you have any such evidence, don't hesitate to post it, otherwise kindly please stop wasting my time.

You have it wrong. 8-10 floors of fire are likely to have caused the collapse, but much more of the building was burning, as evidence by the ENTIRE BACKSIDE of the building smoking, and the evidence of damage, of course. Are you going to tell me now that the damage was "minor"?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by ANOK


In all that text it comes down to 'sagging trusses pulled in the columns'.

You lie.

It does not say that.

DO some reaserch.

Huh?

6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

www.nist.gov...

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by ANOK


In all that text it comes down to 'sagging trusses pulled in the columns'.

You lie.

It does not say that.

DO some reaserch.

You just insulted ANOK by calling him a liar. You even went further and authoritatively stated that the NIST report does not say that.

How do you account for the above because it is most definitely not a mistake? You knowingly called ANOK a liar then proceed to lie about the NIST report.

You have been found out dude and I await your excuse about your libelous abuse.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Sorry, but I’ve wasted enough of my life on reading your cult’s half-baked and phoney propaganda already. If you have some new hard scientific evidence that actually demonstrates the truth of your outlandish claims for which abundant counter-evidence already exists, then I am willing to look at it but otherwise not.

Translation: there is no evidence that can ever change your faith. Its a rather simple question. What evidence do you require to believe the "OS".

I’m glad you understand what’s wrong with it. Care to explain?

For example, he just asserts completely out of the blue that NIST forgot safety factors. With nothing to back that assertion up.

The scientific method requires us to ignore persons and pay attention to the content of what they are saying instead. The question of whether I am a layman is irrelevant in science. All that matters from a scientific standpoint is veracity. Dismissing any and all of what people say simply because they are not experts as you are doing, is not only unscientific – but is also self-stupefying as it automatically blocks you from receiving what information their point of view might otherwise be able to give you. Prejudging these people’s point of view as worthless only deprives you of its value, not anyone else. Really PLB, all you have left is argument from authority, and it’s quite sad, you know. How long are you going to keep up this prevarication? When are you going to show us some real evidence for a change rather than endlessly obfuscating and diverting?

But, you are saying nothing, except for "it is wrong". I have asked you multiple times now to support your assertions with evidence or arguments. The moment you start doing that is the moment when "science" starts to listen. It does not listen to random people shouting "its wrong".

You have yet to ‘specify’ what this evidence is, have you? What ‘photographic evidence’ are you referring to and how does it support a fire-induced collapse?

Come on, read that report. Seriously.

Yes I have. It doesn’t look the same in the models as it does in real-life. It isn’t rocket-science to grasp and neither is it a matter of interpretation. It’s a self-evident fact. Take a look at the video I generously posted for you on the first page.

So you think that looking at pictures and stating it does not look close enough to your laymen opinion is in any way scientific and a good basis for your argument? You may think that but the rest of the world doesn't.

If you had the courage to be honest with yourself I think you would see that this is exactly what you are doing. Unconscious psychological projection springs to mind here.

Well then, you would have no problem to list the questions I ignored. I will give you some big ones:

How did you determine that the model does not look close enough. Show your methodology and show your logical line of reasoning that got you to that conclusion.

Explain why fire induced collapses can no look like the WTC collapse.

So you do consider my saying that you sounded a ‘bit delirious’ as name-calling then? I can only say I disagree. Your sensibilities do seem a bit touchy today, PLB.

If you see the crap your fellow truthers come with you must realize I am not sensible or touchy at all. I just think it is too bad that you seemed quite civilized but slowly seem to sink to their level. Yes, I do care about my fellow human.

Congratulations on stating the dumbfoundingly obvious PLB. But the point we are trying to point out to you here (and failing spectacularly) is that NIST have not explained the total collapse of the buildings. Therefore the collapse of the buildings (i.e. how they managed to collapse through themselves with such extraordinary velocity) remains unexplained by NIST. I hope that helps.

No, you have a misconception of NIST's task. It is not to answer the questions of truthers. It was to find out what caused collapse so it can be prevented in the future.

Note that we are talking in circles here. I am not sure what it is you didn't get from what I wrote. Again, it was never NIST's task to explain the collapse itself. Yet you reply "But PLB, they haven't explained the total collapses, have they?" Again: No they did not, and it was not their task.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
If it is experiencing any resistance from the static-mass below then it should start pivoting away from its center of gravity in what is known as ‘unstable equilibrium’ and once this starts to happen then it continues until it reaches ‘stable equilibrium’ or if it is counteracted by an equal and opposite force. In fact this is observed in the videos momentarily for about 2 seconds for WTC2 before the top-section disappears into a cloud of dust. If the top-section of WTC2 did collapse straight down through the tower as we are to be believe, then it must have miraculously straightened up somehow. Also, remarkably, the top-section (that was pivoting outwards) is absent from the rubble-pile afterwards. One can only logically assume that it was blown to smithereens in mid-air.

edit on 20-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

Remarkably, this answer doesn't even touch the question I asked. It was a multiple choice question with 3 options. But anyway, this simple question should be a piece of cake for you. I want to know if ANOK can answer it. But he ignores me most of the time.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by ANOK


In all that text it comes down to 'sagging trusses pulled in the columns'.

You lie.

It does not say that.

DO some reaserch.

Huh?

6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

www.nist.gov...

A more detailed examination of the NIST report would reveal all that happened as a result of :

(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns


A reliance on a FAQ sheet for your rebuttal proves that you are not familiar with which you argue against.

This is not my problem, nor does anyone need to provide you with answers or a more thorough explanation.

Your arguement is null and void. Truthers have lost the debate. the "OS" is the generally accepted explanation. I do nothing and i still win the arguement.

Deal with this by a more thorough rebuttal, or be relegated to the sidelines as truthers have been for the last 10+ years...

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

You just insulted ANOK by calling him a liar.

I personally have corrected him before on what the report says. he knows the correct answer to what NIST says caused the collapse. Therefore, each time he repeats a falsehood, he comes closer and closer to proving my assessment.

It's either that or he's woefully uninformed about what he's argueing against and his statements can be dismissed as trolling.

You even went further and authoritatively stated that the NIST report does not say that

It doesn't say JUST that in the full report. He knows this. It has been pointed out before. readers will decide who is being deceitful....

How do you account for the above because it is most definitely not a mistake?

It's cuz he quotemines. All truthers do this, cuz they must ignore the full context.

You knowingly called ANOK a liar

Cuz he's repeating quotemined statements and ignoring the full report.

then proceed to lie about the NIST report.

Nope. I know what the full report says. It does not in any way, shape, or form say what he says it does. he is quotemining a FAQ sheet, which is weak.

You have been found out dude and I await your excuse about your libelous abuse.

No libel.

It's the truth.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Deal with this by a more thorough rebuttal, or be relegated to the sidelines as truthers have been for the last 10+ years...

"Truthers" are only on "the sidelines" if your whole world revolves around the boob tube and radio. Thankfully there is an intellectual world out there who don't buy the crap anymore. You are a dying breed, you just don't know it yet.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
I personally have corrected him before on what the report says. he knows the correct answer to what NIST says caused the collapse. Therefore, each time he repeats a falsehood, he comes closer and closer to proving my assessment.

Are you still babbling on about NIST? Everyone knows that in 1993, explosives were used in an attempt to bring down the WTC. And yet, amazingly, NIST has ruled that NO EVIDENCE of explosives has been found, while to THIS DAY they have refused to test the dust and debris for explosives. If I were you, I would disassociate myself as much as possible from these criminally complicit clowns and stop pointing to them as some kind of "authority". It really is embarrassing for you.

Independent investigations have turned out the evidence that NIST is covering up.....

Active Thermitic Material - Not only a smoking gun, but a loaded gun

firefightersfor911truth.org...

Seriously, you and your fellow lemmings deserve to go right off the precipice and land right in the middle of a Halliburton camp. Your efforts are helping to destroy America. You really are a disgrace.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Deal with this by a more thorough rebuttal, or be relegated to the sidelines as truthers have been for the last 10+ years...

"Truthers" are only on "the sidelines" if your whole world revolves around the boob tube and radio. Thankfully there is an intellectual world out there who don't buy the crap anymore. You are a dying breed, you just don't know it yet.

edit on 21-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

Print this out and put it up on your wall.

10 years from now, nothing will have changed.

It's cuz you have lost your quest for a new investigation. That will not change. I guarantee it.