Originally posted by: Number1
It's funny how a kid using big words he doesn't even know how to spell assumes he is more qualified to tell us how WTC7 fell then the US National Institute of Standards and Technology.
LOL
Apollo 11 mission commander and famed astronaut Neil Armstrong shocked reporters at a press conference Monday, announcing he had been convinced that his historic first step on the moon was part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the United States government.
According to Armstrong, he was forced to reconsider every single detail of the monumental journey after watching a few persuasive YouTube videos, and reading several blog posts on conspiracy theorist Ralph Coleman's website, OmissionControl.org.
Despite having spent thousands of hours training for the historic mission under the guidance of the world's top scientists, technicians, and pilots, Armstrong said he knew the conspiracy theories were true after learning that website author Coleman was "quite the engineering buff."
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
k: If you buckle your knees, you can descend at free fall or even quicker, as you are using the force of your muscles to do so. If you just go limp to let gravity bring you down, then your knees buckling provides resistive force which keeps you acceleration below that of free fall. To get you yourself to fall in such a way at free fall with gravity alone, you'd have remove you legs from knees down by some means or another.
M: You cannot buckle your knees and descend any faster than free fall. You can't use muscle power to accelerate your fall unless you push down from the ceiling or some such. If you go limp you go limp, there is no force in your knees to slow your fall because your knees are limp too. You would not have to remove your knees at all. The moment your go limp at the knees your legs cease to support your torso which is just as if you had no legs at all. Gravity acts everywhere instantaneously and every part of you will fall at the same acceleration if you are in free fall, limp. There is no resistance from below at all. If you are trying to stop your fall by using your leg muscles you can slow your fall but you can't accelerate it with muscle power at all, unless, as I said, you could use something to push or pull yourself down with. That does not happen in any normal fall.
yeah you think this would be basic knowledge..
Originally posted by: Number1
The concept that the building would have been set up for demolition prior to the attack is mindbogglingly ridiculous but this is what the OP is implying.
Of course he will deny this and say he doesn't know what brought down the building. Really what the OP is saying is that there is a big cover up and obviously every NIST scientist involved in the investigation is in on it.
So tell us OP, you must have an idea, what is the NIST covering up?
How is it even remotely possible to have a bunch of scientist who would purposely hide the biggest crime of the century.
Talking to those people is an exercise in futility, it's like talking to a wall. Twutters will never understand because in the end they are nothing but a bunch of stupid paranoid fools.
I don't suffer fool lightly and will take every opportunity to discredit and ridicule them. They deserve nothing less.
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Lastly, the WTC complex was near-full with tenants. Why would he fuck that up? After a plane slams into a skyscraper, it would be incredibly hard to attract new businesses back into those same buildings.
edit: the point is that Silverstein lost billions of dollars. He's not the mastermind of an evil plot. He's a victim of terrorism.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
IF only nutty folks were up in arms it would be ok as is.. but there are world experts who don't agree. Let there be a full and complete investigation that satisfies the non-nut cases and be done with it.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: LunarRay
IF only nutty folks were up in arms it would be ok as is.. but there are world experts who don't agree. Let there be a full and complete investigation that satisfies the non-nut cases and be done with it.
There is no satisfying people who are up in arms over this. If you disprove one thing, they just move to the next. You can't simply look at one aspect of 9/11 in a vacuum. If WT7 was a controlled demolition, then you have to consider everything else that would need to be true, i.e. the overall conspiracy, the huge number of people involved, the planes vs missiles, the cell phone calls to family members allged to have been faked, the missing bodies of the pentagon flight victims, the belief that everyone in the conspiracy was perfectly ok with the potential murder of tens of thousands of americans, etc.
There are people still disputing the moon landing and that was 40 years ago. I bet you could even find some "legitimate experts" who side with the nutters. Hell there are legitimate experts who testified in the 90's in court that there was zero evidence that smoking caused any diseases at all. Some folks will never be satisfied. The best we can do is point and laugh.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: LunarRay
IF only nutty folks were up in arms it would be ok as is.. but there are world experts who don't agree. Let there be a full and complete investigation that satisfies the non-nut cases and be done with it.
There is no satisfying people who are up in arms over this. If you disprove one thing, they just move to the next. You can't simply look at one aspect of 9/11 in a vacuum. If WT7 was a controlled demolition, then you have to consider everything else that would need to be true, i.e. the overall conspiracy, the huge number of people involved, the planes vs missiles, the cell phone calls to family members allged to have been faked, the missing bodies of the pentagon flight victims, the belief that everyone in the conspiracy was perfectly ok with the potential murder of tens of thousands of americans, etc.
There are people still disputing the moon landing and that was 40 years ago. I bet you could even find some "legitimate experts" who side with the nutters. Hell there are legitimate experts who testified in the 90's in court that there was zero evidence that smoking caused any diseases at all. Some folks will never be satisfied. The best we can do is point and laugh.
I suppose that the smart thinking would have sought to allay or minimize the reality of other experts taking issue. That was the key to moving on. IF only nuts were left the entire issue would be moot.
To say '7' was a part of the greater Conspiracy is flat out insane!!! [EDIT: I mean there was no greater conspiracy to be part of] To say that '7' is the key to proving a Conspiracy exists for all the terrorist actions is also insane. But, '7' has some issues that could easily have been attached to the terrorist actions IF the investigation was done with a mind to include all the evidence in a fair and open way... I'd be ok with a statement to the effect that 'We just can't show conclusively this or that'. The experts who oppose the findings or methods would submit their own and make it part of the record and then they too would be part of the findings... a simple matter to diffuse the issue...
Every time Government seeks to investigate something they seem to forget there will always be folks who want to nail them to the event... why not consider this and get it done with that reality in mind...
IF as a result of that kind of investigation there is a chance that it may have been other than terroristic activity or perhaps a crime after the original crime then we can look there too.. but that takes motive and the opportunity to do the crime... We could look there first... and if we see no motive or opportunity we can diminish that aspect and move on to Afghanistan or what ever.
Originally posted by: jonks
So Silverstein (or some other shadowy person or group) wired WT7 with explosives so they could detonate them to capitalize on some plot on the off chance someone blew up the TT again?
It's kinda like looking at the Obama birther movement. Say there's a normal guy who just finds it odd that the long form certificate hasn't been produced. If he decides that since that doc hasn't been produced, and despite everything else that has, that he's going to believe Obama was born in Kenya, then this person doesn't deserve any further talking to. Everyone else takes the birth announcements in newspaper articles from 50 years ago, the certs of live birth, the HI governor and HI dept of health statements that they have the original cert on file at face value.
Actually, they did consider many possible scenarios, and subsequently ruled them out because the evidence on the ground didn't back up those scenarios. They even looked at the possibility of a demolition event.Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the problem is to do with the WAY the investigation was done. It seems to have an absence of normal and typical investigative techniques from the start to the finish. (WTC 7). It seems to contain bias that WTC 7 had to occur as a result of the Tower visits by the Terrorists and that they took that approach and worked back. They should have taken in all aspects of the event as it applied to WTC 7 as a separate issue. IF they had two or three possible scenarios that were possible then state it like that and/or which is more likely than the other.
IF only nutty folks were up in arms it would be ok as is.. but there are world experts who don't agree. Let there be a full and complete investigation that satisfies the non-nut cases and be done with it. When an investigation does not consider eye witness accounts, physical evidence, refuses to shut up dissent by not giving what data it is using and how, and stating as fact what is not in evidence they open the can of worms for both the nutty and the respected who disagree.
In other words, the free-fall was only lasted 2.25 seconds because there was a time when no supporting structure was preventing the descent of the mass and what was there made for negligable resistence. That is expected when structural support fails so completely, as it did in WTC7.In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST...or_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PD...R%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time?compared to the 3.9 second free fall time?was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
No evidence of demolition.Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In 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.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
What's funny is that truthers love to shout "But NIST claimed there was no free-fall in WTC7, then admitted there was. Like, OMG!"Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column ? presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
Originally posted by: alchemize
I do believe that TLC's post is plenty of expert rebuttal from the OP's BS "Facts".
Originally posted by: alchemize
I do believe that TLC's post is plenty of expert rebuttal from the OP's BS "Facts".
The problem is that the report is supposed to determine and describe what actually happened, according to the best of their analytical and expert abilities. In order to make that determination one final finding must be produced because it only happened one way. If they included a bunch of different opinions they'd end up with little more than what we get from the truthers - a disparate, non-coherent description of events that ultimately tells us nothing of value.Originally posted by: LunarRay
TLC,
I'll respond in greater detail after I get back from the store.
I've looked at the investigations of the important events of my lifetime... Warren Commission, The House on Assassinations, This.. and the minor ones.. Each has the same events occur. Some group of like minded and equally capable experts at odds with the official version. Cryil Wecht at odds with Michael Baden on JFK... etc, and etc.. What I'd like to see is the official version include dissent.. sorta like a SCOTUS opinion. "OK.. this is the result of our investigation. " In this case we'd have anyone who is anyone stating what they see.. their reputation on the line and all that.. We'd be informed in one document with which we can't argue with but could take a position to support a minority view, If we so choose.. but then who cares.. it is what it is.. and the only thing that matters then is what does the Powers to be do about it..
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that the report is supposed to determine and describe what actually happened, according to the best of their analytical and expert abilities. In order to make that determination one final finding must be produced because it only happened one way. If they included a bunch of different opinions they'd end up with little more than what we get from the truthers - a disparate, non-coherent description of events that ultimately tells us nothing of value.Originally posted by: LunarRay
TLC,
I'll respond in greater detail after I get back from the store.
I've looked at the investigations of the important events of my lifetime... Warren Commission, The House on Assassinations, This.. and the minor ones.. Each has the same events occur. Some group of like minded and equally capable experts at odds with the official version. Cryil Wecht at odds with Michael Baden on JFK... etc, and etc.. What I'd like to see is the official version include dissent.. sorta like a SCOTUS opinion. "OK.. this is the result of our investigation. " In this case we'd have anyone who is anyone stating what they see.. their reputation on the line and all that.. We'd be informed in one document with which we can't argue with but could take a position to support a minority view, If we so choose.. but then who cares.. it is what it is.. and the only thing that matters then is what does the Powers to be do about it..
There may be minor differences of opinion amongst the actual experts on the minutiae. I don't believe any of changes the final outcome though. Ultimately, the fires brought down WTC7. All the major facts point to that outcome. There's no realistic evidence that demolitions brought down WTC7 and plenty of explanations why demolitions were not involved. Claiming that such "expert" dissenting opinions should be allowed in the report would be as silly as including claims that aliens destroyed WTC7 or a herd of elephants stomped it to the ground.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well, TLC, the premise is that NIST in this case or the full Commission report is deemed to be the Government's version. My position is that, ok... Are they stating that no other possible explanation is possible? In the face of credible dissent by folks with no Conspiracy agenda but, rather, folks whose expertise leads them to another answer, the Government's version is a bit tainted, imo. These 'Truthers' [what ever that is suppose to mean] folks then fall into the broad camp of dissent and get labled. The link I provided is from the Former Head of NIST who does not agree with NIST's methods and conclusions for a variety of reasons. Is this fellow of no import?
I beg to differ with your analysis that minority opinion contained with in the 'official' version would provide nothing at all... I figure that so long as all folks operating within their expertise using the same means and methods - as would be agreed upon - could provide strength where they agreed and weakness where they differ and we could all know the best of science provided this analyis.. what we felt warm and fuzzy with would depend but if they concluded that all but WTC 7 resulted from terroristic attacks we'd then look to WTC 7 and what they, the experts, decided and say ok.. we can't go further cuz that is only speculation with out opportunity or motive... a dead horse, as it were.
EDIT: Equally brilliant minds like SCOTUS hardly ever, now a days, give unanimous assent to a case. But their minority opinion gives us the other side, so to speak. It is informative.
You nor I can conclude anything happened just one way.... IF equally astute minds having the same data conclude otherwise then we have more than one way... seems to me.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There may be minor differences of opinion amongst the actual experts on the minutiae. I don't believe any of changes the final outcome though. Ultimately, the fires brought down WTC7. All the major facts point to that outcome. There's no realistic evidence that demolitions brought down WTC7 and plenty of explanations why demolitions were not involved. Claiming that such "expert" dissenting opinions should be allowed in the report would be as silly as including claims that aliens destroyed WTC7 or a herd of elephants stomped it to the ground.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There may be minor differences of opinion amongst the actual experts on the minutiae. I don't believe any of changes the final outcome though. Ultimately, the fires brought down WTC7. All the major facts point to that outcome. There's no realistic evidence that demolitions brought down WTC7 and plenty of explanations why demolitions were not involved. Claiming that such "expert" dissenting opinions should be allowed in the report would be as silly as including claims that aliens destroyed WTC7 or a herd of elephants stomped it to the ground.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There may be minor differences of opinion amongst the actual experts on the minutiae. I don't believe any of changes the final outcome though. Ultimately, the fires brought down WTC7. All the major facts point to that outcome. There's no realistic evidence that demolitions brought down WTC7 and plenty of explanations why demolitions were not involved. Claiming that such "expert" dissenting opinions should be allowed in the report would be as silly as including claims that aliens destroyed WTC7 or a herd of elephants stomped it to the ground.
This is really the only post required for this thread. Then again, I guess if posts like this were likely to sway people this thread probably wouldn't have been posted to begin with.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There may be minor differences of opinion amongst the actual experts on the minutiae. I don't believe any of changes the final outcome though. Ultimately, the fires brought down WTC7. All the major facts point to that outcome. There's no realistic evidence that demolitions brought down WTC7 and plenty of explanations why demolitions were not involved. Claiming that such "expert" dissenting opinions should be allowed in the report would be as silly as including claims that aliens destroyed WTC7 or a herd of elephants stomped it to the ground.
This is really the only post required for this thread. Then again, I guess if posts like this were likely to sway people this thread probably wouldn't have been posted to begin with.
IF every scientist or other authority on the planet with expertise on their aspect of 9/11 concluded that everything but why WTC 7 fell was to do with the Terrorist Actions of AQ I think we'd be at where I am in all of this. It is WTC 7 that bothers lots of folks. It bothers me too but in two respects. One is to do with nothing at all related to 9/11 and the other is to do with and to a much lesser degree, how did that building fall and why. That don't mean I think aliens or elephants or explosives or fires did it. It means I'm not convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that what is stated by the NIST folks is the only way it could have happened. For example, NIST says raging fires all day while eye balls on the scene say scattered fires on a few floors. That kind of evidence and it is evidence makes statements made by the NIST folks to be somewhat incomplete or misleading or not inclusive of all the evidence.
Originally posted by: Number1
Classic case of "The Plane Will Not Take Off"syndrome.
I don't think Mythbusters can solve this one for us.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There may be minor differences of opinion amongst the actual experts on the minutiae. I don't believe any of changes the final outcome though. Ultimately, the fires brought down WTC7. All the major facts point to that outcome. There's no realistic evidence that demolitions brought down WTC7 and plenty of explanations why demolitions were not involved. Claiming that such "expert" dissenting opinions should be allowed in the report would be as silly as including claims that aliens destroyed WTC7 or a herd of elephants stomped it to the ground.
This is really the only post required for this thread. Then again, I guess if posts like this were likely to sway people this thread probably wouldn't have been posted to begin with.
IF every scientist or other authority on the planet with expertise on their aspect of 9/11 concluded that everything but why WTC 7 fell was to do with the Terrorist Actions of AQ I think we'd be at where I am in all of this. It is WTC 7 that bothers lots of folks. It bothers me too but in two respects. One is to do with nothing at all related to 9/11 and the other is to do with and to a much lesser degree, how did that building fall and why. That don't mean I think aliens or elephants or explosives or fires did it. It means I'm not convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that what is stated by the NIST folks is the only way it could have happened. For example, NIST says raging fires all day while eye balls on the scene say scattered fires on a few floors. That kind of evidence and it is evidence makes statements made by the NIST folks to be somewhat incomplete or misleading or not inclusive of all the evidence.
NIST explains how and why WTC7 fell. Numerous independent follow-up studies by structural engineers (The actual "experts" on the subject.) have agreed with those findings. Additionally, the NIST report describes the fires, a description based on the copious photo and video evidence as well as testimony from the firefighters who were on the scene and inside the building. Questioning that aspect of the events is pretty silly since it really is fairly well documented.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There may be minor differences of opinion amongst the actual experts on the minutiae. I don't believe any of changes the final outcome though. Ultimately, the fires brought down WTC7. All the major facts point to that outcome. There's no realistic evidence that demolitions brought down WTC7 and plenty of explanations why demolitions were not involved. Claiming that such "expert" dissenting opinions should be allowed in the report would be as silly as including claims that aliens destroyed WTC7 or a herd of elephants stomped it to the ground.
This is really the only post required for this thread. Then again, I guess if posts like this were likely to sway people this thread probably wouldn't have been posted to begin with.
IF every scientist or other authority on the planet with expertise on their aspect of 9/11 concluded that everything but why WTC 7 fell was to do with the Terrorist Actions of AQ I think we'd be at where I am in all of this. It is WTC 7 that bothers lots of folks. It bothers me too but in two respects. One is to do with nothing at all related to 9/11 and the other is to do with and to a much lesser degree, how did that building fall and why. That don't mean I think aliens or elephants or explosives or fires did it. It means I'm not convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that what is stated by the NIST folks is the only way it could have happened. For example, NIST says raging fires all day while eye balls on the scene say scattered fires on a few floors. That kind of evidence and it is evidence makes statements made by the NIST folks to be somewhat incomplete or misleading or not inclusive of all the evidence.