|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 10, 2014 10:39:28 GMT -5
Perhaps you believe that WTC7 collapsed as a result of office fires as you were fed. Ok, fine. What is not believable and in fact impossible is NIST's theory as to how the collapse started.
To review, NIST theorized that the collapse was initiated by the failure of a single column (79) and that led to sort of a domino effect where the rest of the structure collapsed progressively (note there were 82 steel columns in a 47 story building about the size of a football field). NIST's Final Report on the collapse of WTC7 claims that fire caused the thermal expansion of steel beams connected to column 79 and that expansion caused column 79 to fall off its seat and lead to a cascading type of failure. In order to try to make it match what anyone can see on video, NIST claims most of the collapse took place in the interior portion of the building (note column 79 was located in one corner of the building) and sort of hollowed out the building so that eventually the outer shell could come down at free fall (admitted by NIST) and near free fall.
There are multiple problems with the above theory. NIST's own documents, obtained via FOIA release, show that the diagrams and descriptions in the NIST Report are missing several critical components. These are:
1. Shear studs. There were hundreds of shear studs that connected beams and columns and other components to each other. These were not included or accounted for in the NIST Report. They are included in the original drawings that NIST released.
2. Lateral support beams. There were multiple lateral support beams that were connected to columns that were not included in the NIST Report. They are included in the original drawings that NIST released.
3. Stiffeners. These are welded components that are added to lend additional support to beam/column connections. These are missing from the NIST drawings in their report but are included in the original drawings that NIST released.
NIST's theory with respect to the failure of column 79 due to thermal expansion is IMPOSSIBLE once these critical components are included. Please also note that there is NO EVIDENCE that NIST has ever produced that can possibly show that column 79 failed in the first place. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn from either video observation or material evidence that NIST admits it did not have. Most of the debris from the collapse of WTC7 was removed and destroyed well before NIST even started their "investigation". In fact, NIST originally claimed they could not get a handle on the collapse of WTC7 and years later claimed the reason for its collapse was "obvious".
Only 2 conclusions can be drawn from NIST's omissions.
1. Gross incompetence. Those who took part in the investigation are seasoned engineers and scientists. They had full access to the original drawings as clearly evidenced upon their FOIA release.
2. Criminal fraud. It is a massive stretch to believe that those at NIST were so incompetent as to fail to account for the missing structural components then base a theory on a structure where these components don't exist.
Perhaps you want to believe that #1 is true. Ok then, assuming it is, why on earth would you not demand a real investigation on the collapse of WTC7? Why would you be satisfied with a report based on gross incompetence? Why would you not want NIST itself investigated to try to determine whether these people committed fraud or not?
Personally, it's a no-brainer that NIST committed fraud. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 13:30:04 GMT -5
Perhaps you believe that WTC7 collapsed as a result of office fires as you were fed. Ok, fine. What is not believable and in fact impossible is NIST's theory as to how the collapse started. To review, NIST theorized that the collapse was initiated by the failure of a single column (79) and that led to sort of a domino effect where the rest of the structure collapsed progressively (note there were 82 steel columns in a 47 story building about the size of a football field). NIST's Final Report on the collapse of WTC7 claims that fire caused the thermal expansion of steel beams connected to column 79 and that expansion caused column 79 to fall off its seat and lead to a cascading type of failure. In order to try to make it match what anyone can see on video, NIST claims most of the collapse took place in the interior portion of the building (note column 79 was located in one corner of the building) and sort of hollowed out the building so that eventually the outer shell could come down at free fall (admitted by NIST) and near free fall. There are multiple problems with the above theory. NIST's own documents, obtained via FOIA release, show that the diagrams and descriptions in the NIST Report are missing several critical components. These are: 1. Shear studs. There were hundreds of shear studs that connected beams and columns and other components to each other. These were not included or accounted for in the NIST Report. They are included in the original drawings that NIST released. 2. Lateral support beams. There were multiple lateral support beams that were connected to columns that were not included in the NIST Report. They are included in the original drawings that NIST released. 3. Stiffeners. These are welded components that are added to lend additional support to beam/column connections. These are missing from the NIST drawings in their report but are included in the original drawings that NIST released. NIST's theory with respect to the failure of column 79 due to thermal expansion is IMPOSSIBLE once these critical components are included. Please also note that there is NO EVIDENCE that NIST has ever produced that can possibly show that column 79 failed in the first place. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn from either video observation or material evidence that NIST admits it did not have. Most of the debris from the collapse of WTC7 was removed and destroyed well before NIST even started their "investigation". In fact, NIST originally claimed they could not get a handle on the collapse of WTC7 and years later claimed the reason for its collapse was "obvious". Only 2 conclusions can be drawn from NIST's omissions. 1. Gross incompetence. Those who took part in the investigation are seasoned engineers and scientists. They had full access to the original drawings as clearly evidenced upon their FOIA release. 2. Criminal fraud. It is a massive stretch to believe that those at NIST were so incompetent as to fail to account for the missing structural components then base a theory on a structure where these components don't exist. Perhaps you want to believe that #1 is true. Ok then, assuming it is, why on earth would you not demand a real investigation on the collapse of WTC7? Why would you be satisfied with a report based on gross incompetence? Why would you not want NIST itself investigated to try to determine whether these people committed fraud or not? Personally, it's a no-brainer that NIST committed fraud. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise. It is impossible until you take into account the extensive structural damage seen in photographs and the even more extensive damage that wasn't seen in the photographs because of the direction the smoke was blowing.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 13:42:14 GMT -5
Perhaps you believe that WTC7 collapsed as a result of office fires as you were fed. Ok, fine. What is not believable and in fact impossible is NIST's theory as to how the collapse started. To review, NIST theorized that the collapse was initiated by the failure of a single column (79) and that led to sort of a domino effect where the rest of the structure collapsed progressively (note there were 82 steel columns in a 47 story building about the size of a football field). NIST's Final Report on the collapse of WTC7 claims that fire caused the thermal expansion of steel beams connected to column 79 and that expansion caused column 79 to fall off its seat and lead to a cascading type of failure. In order to try to make it match what anyone can see on video, NIST claims most of the collapse took place in the interior portion of the building (note column 79 was located in one corner of the building) and sort of hollowed out the building so that eventually the outer shell could come down at free fall (admitted by NIST) and near free fall. There are multiple problems with the above theory. NIST's own documents, obtained via FOIA release, show that the diagrams and descriptions in the NIST Report are missing several critical components. These are: 1. Shear studs. There were hundreds of shear studs that connected beams and columns and other components to each other. These were not included or accounted for in the NIST Report. They are included in the original drawings that NIST released. 2. Lateral support beams. There were multiple lateral support beams that were connected to columns that were not included in the NIST Report. They are included in the original drawings that NIST released. 3. Stiffeners. These are welded components that are added to lend additional support to beam/column connections. These are missing from the NIST drawings in their report but are included in the original drawings that NIST released. NIST's theory with respect to the failure of column 79 due to thermal expansion is IMPOSSIBLE once these critical components are included. Please also note that there is NO EVIDENCE that NIST has ever produced that can possibly show that column 79 failed in the first place. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn from either video observation or material evidence that NIST admits it did not have. Most of the debris from the collapse of WTC7 was removed and destroyed well before NIST even started their "investigation". In fact, NIST originally claimed they could not get a handle on the collapse of WTC7 and years later claimed the reason for its collapse was "obvious". Only 2 conclusions can be drawn from NIST's omissions. 1. Gross incompetence. Those who took part in the investigation are seasoned engineers and scientists. They had full access to the original drawings as clearly evidenced upon their FOIA release. 2. Criminal fraud. It is a massive stretch to believe that those at NIST were so incompetent as to fail to account for the missing structural components then base a theory on a structure where these components don't exist. Perhaps you want to believe that #1 is true. Ok then, assuming it is, why on earth would you not demand a real investigation on the collapse of WTC7? Why would you be satisfied with a report based on gross incompetence? Why would you not want NIST itself investigated to try to determine whether these people committed fraud or not? Personally, it's a no-brainer that NIST committed fraud. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise. It is impossible until you take into account the extensive structural damage seen in photographs and the even more extensive damage that wasn't seen in the photographs because of the direction the smoke was blowing. You missed the entire point of what I posted. I was only talking about NIST's column 79 collapse initiation theory, not about the collapse itself. No one has shown what caused WTC7 to collapse in the manner it did. However: 1. NIST claimed the damage did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7. 2. The manner of the WTC7 collapse (free fall, global, symmetrical roof line intact throughout the collapse) is impossible unless all 82 columns are taken out simultaneously. Neither fire, structural damage or both can cause that to happen. 3. Over 2,100 experts agree that WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire. Fire may be responsible for partial, asymmetrical collapse but certainly not the manner described in #2.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 13:48:21 GMT -5
It is impossible until you take into account the extensive structural damage seen in photographs and the even more extensive damage that wasn't seen in the photographs because of the direction the smoke was blowing. You missed the entire point of what I posted. I was only talking about NIST's column 79 collapse initiation theory, not about the collapse itself. No one has shown what caused WTC7 to collapse in the manner it did. However: 1. NIST claimed the damage did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7. 2. The manner of the WTC7 collapse (free fall, global, symmetrical roof line intact throughout the collapse) is impossible unless all 82 columns are taken out simultaneously. Neither fire, structural damage or both can cause that to happen. 3. Over 2,100 experts agree that WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire. Fire may be responsible for partial, asymmetrical collapse but certainly not the manner described in #2. I'm talking about the collapse itself. Can you cite where NIST said the structural damage seen in numerous photographs did not contribute to the collapse? That would be pretty dumb thing to say when the damage was well-known of. Unlikely does not equal impossible. What did those 2100 experts say about the structural damage?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 13:58:52 GMT -5
You missed the entire point of what I posted. I was only talking about NIST's column 79 collapse initiation theory, not about the collapse itself. No one has shown what caused WTC7 to collapse in the manner it did. However: 1. NIST claimed the damage did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7. 2. The manner of the WTC7 collapse (free fall, global, symmetrical roof line intact throughout the collapse) is impossible unless all 82 columns are taken out simultaneously. Neither fire, structural damage or both can cause that to happen. 3. Over 2,100 experts agree that WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire. Fire may be responsible for partial, asymmetrical collapse but certainly not the manner described in #2. I'm talking about the collapse itself. Can you cite where NIST said the structural damage seen in numerous photographs did not contribute to the collapse? That would be pretty dumb thing to say when the damage was well-known of. Unlikely does not equal impossible. What did those 2100 experts say about the structural damage? See #21 & #22: www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfmI didn't say unlikely (as to the column 79 theory and the manner of the collapse), I said IMPOSSIBLE. If you want details about what experts said, there are many links in this section. If you want the video on the collapses as detailed by experts, this is probably the best one:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 14:03:58 GMT -5
I'm talking about the collapse itself. Can you cite where NIST said the structural damage seen in numerous photographs did not contribute to the collapse? That would be pretty dumb thing to say when the damage was well-known of. Unlikely does not equal impossible. What did those 2100 experts say about the structural damage? See #21 & #22: www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfmI didn't say unlikely (as to the column 79 theory and the manner of the collapse), I said IMPOSSIBLE. If you want details about what experts said, there are many links in this section. If you want the video on the collapses as detailed by experts, this is probably the best one: Says it did not initiate the collapse. It does not say it did not contribute to it. I can't watch videos right now.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 14:12:35 GMT -5
See #21 & #22: www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfmI didn't say unlikely (as to the column 79 theory and the manner of the collapse), I said IMPOSSIBLE. If you want details about what experts said, there are many links in this section. If you want the video on the collapses as detailed by experts, this is probably the best one: Says it did not initiate the collapse. It does not say it did not contribute to it. I can't watch videos right now. This is EXACTLY what NIST claims: "The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse"You believe the debris caused structural damage which in turn was part of the cause of the collapse of WTC7. There is a huge distinction. If you're really interested (and that's a big IF since you like to make light of this subject), I strongly suggest you find the time to review the FACTS and not just accept what you've been fed by government and its complicit media or your personal beliefs. No matter what expertise you might have, your expertise is no match for the collective knowledge of over 2,000 experts and the many years of research they have conducted.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 14:24:53 GMT -5
Says it did not initiate the collapse. It does not say it did not contribute to it. I can't watch videos right now. This is EXACTLY what NIST claims: "The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse"You believe the debris caused structural damage which in turn was part of the cause of the collapse of WTC7. There is a huge distinction. If you're really interested (and that's a big IF since you like to make light of this subject), I strongly suggest you find the time to review the FACTS and not just accept what you've been fed by government and its complicit media or your personal beliefs. No matter what expertise you might have, your expertise is no match for the collective knowledge of over 2,000 experts and the many years of research they have conducted. Initiate is not a synonym for contribute. It foes not say the damage did not contribute to it. I've reviewed a lot of info on it and I see a lot of people cherry picking what they want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 15:05:46 GMT -5
This is EXACTLY what NIST claims: "The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse"You believe the debris caused structural damage which in turn was part of the cause of the collapse of WTC7. There is a huge distinction. If you're really interested (and that's a big IF since you like to make light of this subject), I strongly suggest you find the time to review the FACTS and not just accept what you've been fed by government and its complicit media or your personal beliefs. No matter what expertise you might have, your expertise is no match for the collective knowledge of over 2,000 experts and the many years of research they have conducted. Initiate is not a synonym for contribute. It foes not say the damage did not contribute to it. I've reviewed a lot of info on it and I see a lot of people cherry picking what they want to believe. You mean like NIST? They want to pick the purple cherries. We're not talking about a lot of "people", we're talking about experts and basic physics. A lot of people want to believe what they're fed by government about 9/11 because it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling, although even if they told the truth 100%, it wouldn't give me any warm and fuzzy feeling. It would tell me that $trillions of our money did NOT protect us on 9/11 and that our crackerjack defense system is either completely incompetent or just plain useless (which is basically the same thing).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 15:19:04 GMT -5
It seems to me you're hell bent on trying to imagine some justification for the manner of the collapse of WTC7 on fire and structural damage. First off, none of the experts and even NIST (except for fire) do not make that claim. Second, neither fire, structural damage or both can explain a free fall symmetrical global collapse. And finally, as shown, NIST's column 79 theory is not possible so what do you make of NIST? And if NIST is not credible (note they also wrote a report on WTC1 & 2), then where does that leave the 9/11 investigation (in your opinion)?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 17:28:44 GMT -5
It seems to me you're hell bent on trying to imagine some justification for the manner of the collapse of WTC7 on fire and structural damage. First off, none of the experts and even NIST (except for fire) do not make that claim. Second, neither fire, structural damage or both can explain a free fall symmetrical global collapse. And finally, as shown, NIST's column 79 theory is not possible so what do you make of NIST? And if NIST is not credible (note they also wrote a report on WTC1 & 2), then where does that leave the 9/11 investigation (in your opinion)? I'm not the one that's "hell bent" here. I'm simply stating the fact that you saying the NIST said structural damage didn't contribute to the collapse is false. Your own link proves that. I've never denied there are dome inconsistencies and I told you a long time ago that I'm not opposed to a new investigation. Yet whenever we discuss it sndbi point inaccuracies in your claims you end up creating positions for me and then you start calling me names (can't believe that hasn't happened yet). Clearly I don't have the time you do to pick thru every single interview and report on the subject so I'll just listen to your view and move on. Keep us up on any new developments though.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 17:52:24 GMT -5
It seems to me you're hell bent on trying to imagine some justification for the manner of the collapse of WTC7 on fire and structural damage. First off, none of the experts and even NIST (except for fire) do not make that claim. Second, neither fire, structural damage or both can explain a free fall symmetrical global collapse. And finally, as shown, NIST's column 79 theory is not possible so what do you make of NIST? And if NIST is not credible (note they also wrote a report on WTC1 & 2), then where does that leave the 9/11 investigation (in your opinion)? I'm not the one that's "hell bent" here. I'm simply stating the fact that you saying the NIST said structural damage didn't contribute to the collapse is false. Your own link proves that. I've never denied there are dome inconsistencies and I told you a long time ago that I'm not opposed to a new investigation. Yet whenever we discuss it sndbi point inaccuracies in your claims you end up creating positions for me and then you start calling me names (can't believe that hasn't happened yet). Clearly I don't have the time you do to pick thru every single interview and report on the subject so I'll just listen to your view and move on. Keep us up on any new developments though. Sorry you don't understand the point but NIST did claim the structural damage did NOT contribute to the collapse of WTC7. The sentence by NIST on its own website is plain English. Please read it again for comprehension: "The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse"
Taking the above sentence apart it clearly says "The fires initiated by the debris ... initiated the building's collapse". The "..." was part of the sentence that was pulled because it starts with "RATHER THAN" which serves to except/exclude "the structural damage" portion. I can't make it any plainer than that, perhaps you need to consult an English language expert to help you understand the sentence. The entire issue is extremely minor compared to NIST's blatant FRAUD anyway, that which you don't seem to want to bother to address. You say you want to "listen to my view", then move on. Correct me if I'm wrong but to me, what you're saying is that you'll listen but (as you already claimed in the past), you already have your mind made up that the buildings collapsed as a result of planes, fires or both and no amount of EVIDENCE to the contrary will convince you otherwise. And that's ok with me if it's ok with you. You have to live with your beliefs, I don't, I have my own beliefs and I fully support the physics (that's irrefutable) and other science, as well as the opinions of thousands of experts who all agree for the most part that these collapses were not caused by fire, planes or both. Like I said, if you're really interested, you'll find the time to examine the FACTS. It's not my job to try to convince you of anything. Having said that, I will correct you when I feel you've posted misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 17:59:48 GMT -5
I'm not the one that's "hell bent" here. I'm simply stating the fact that you saying the NIST said structural damage didn't contribute to the collapse is false. Your own link proves that. I've never denied there are dome inconsistencies and I told you a long time ago that I'm not opposed to a new investigation. Yet whenever we discuss it sndbi point inaccuracies in your claims you end up creating positions for me and then you start calling me names (can't believe that hasn't happened yet). Clearly I don't have the time you do to pick thru every single interview and report on the subject so I'll just listen to your view and move on. Keep us up on any new developments though. Sorry you don't understand the point but NIST did claim the structural damage did NOT contribute to the collapse of WTC7. The sentence by NIST on its own website is plain English. Please read it again for comprehension: "The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse"
Taking the above sentence apart it clearly says "The fires initiated by the debris ... initiated the building's collapse". The "..." was part of the sentence that was pulled because it starts with "RATHER THAN" which serves to except/exclude "the structural damage" portion. I can't make it any plainer than that, perhaps you need to consult an English language expert to help you understand the sentence. You say you want to "listen to my view", then move on. Correct me if I'm wrong but to me, what you're saying is that you'll listen but (as you already claimed in the past), you already have your mind made up that the buildings collapsed as a result of planes, fires or both and no amount of EVIDENCE to the contrary will convince you otherwise. And that's ok with me if it's ok with you. You have to live with your beliefs, I don't, I have my own beliefs and I fully support the physics (that's irrefutable) and other science, as well as the opinions of thousands of experts who all agree for the most part that these collapses were not caused by fire, planes or both. Like I said, if you're really interested, you'll find the time to examine the FACTS. It's not my job to try to convince you of anything. Having said that, I will correct you when I feel you've posted misinformation. That is not what it says. If you're drunk and I push you over, I initiated your fall and your bring drunk contributed to you falling over. Dies that make more sense? The damage didn't initiate the collapse according to NIST, but they didn't say it didn't contribute to it. "Correct me if I'm wrong...". Okay, you're wrong. I never said it was your job. Why are you becoming confrontational again? You know people would be much more open to discussing this with you if you didn't do that for no reason. "English language expert to help you understand the sentence." Why do feel that is necessary? I'm confident I read at a much higher level than you. Try just discussing the topic without bring an asshole next time.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 18:12:53 GMT -5
Sorry you feel the need to nitpick such a trivial matter (or more likely, sidetrack the issue). The subject is NIST's column 79 theory and the evidence that clearly exhibits NIST's incompetence (to be kind) or fraud (to be real). If you don't like my posting style, it means very little if anything to me. There are quite a few posters in this forum who will agree with you on that subject. In any case, as I pointed out what the subject matter actually is, I'm not going to dwell on your interpretation of what NIST says, I've wasted enough time on that useless point. If you want to discuss the subject matter, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 19:14:42 GMT -5
Sorry you feel the need to nitpick such a trivial matter (or more likely, sidetrack the issue). The subject is NIST's column 79 theory and the evidence that clearly exhibits NIST's incompetence (to be kind) or fraud (to be real). If you don't like my posting style, it means very little if anything to me. There are quite a few posters in this forum who will agree with you on that subject. In any case, as I pointed out what the subject matter actually is, I'm not going to dwell on your interpretation of what NIST says, I've wasted enough time on that useless point. If you want to discuss the subject matter, I'll be more than happy to oblige. I'm sorry you have to stray from the facts rather than stick to them to make your point. It tends to cloud what you're trying to say when you do that. When you open up a thread with a false premise like "Perhaps you believe that WTC7 collapsed as a result of office fires as you were fed", you're going to get this sort of a response. Is the NIST's theory about column 79 suspect? Yes, but it's unfortunate that you had to throw in some extra stuff that was not correct.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 19:48:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 19:50:12 GMT -5
Your opinion as to what's correct or incorrect is just that, your opinion. At the very least, you acknowledge that NIST's theory is "suspect" albeit it's about as condescending as one can get but then again, that's your opinion too. For me there's not one iota of reservation that it's in fact, criminal fraud. But then again, that's my opinion and it is shared by thousands of experts on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 19:51:10 GMT -5
Obviously, NIST and its masters don't either. At least that's what they publicly say.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 19:52:54 GMT -5
Obviously, NIST and its masters don't either. At least that's what they publicly say. Obviously. Did you have anything to add about the article or were you just going to "nitpick"?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 21:11:19 GMT -5
Obviously, NIST and its masters don't either. At least that's what they publicly say. Obviously. Did you have anything to add about the article or were you just going to "nitpick"? You're absolutely right, you brought it up and you're looking for my opinion, so I'll give it. I've seen that article before and it's more or less a regurgitation of NIST's theory with one extra added element, that WTC7 was built over an electrical substation. The problem with the authors' theory is the same as with NIST's theory. It relies on the failure of a single column which initiates the progressive collapse of the entire building. It fails to take into account that column 79 could not have failed in the manner described by NIST. It also starts with the very same ASSUMPTION, that because the penthouse was seen collapsing first, it points to the failure of column 79 but never provides proof that this actually happened. It also fails to explain how WTC7 could possibly collapse globally, symmetrically and at free fall acceleration due to the failure of one single column. If you want a more detailed and much more expert explanation, I already provided a link to one video and you can browse this website for more: 911speakout.org/?page_id=8
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 21:36:53 GMT -5
Obviously. Did you have anything to add about the article or were you just going to "nitpick"? You're absolutely right, you brought it up and you're looking for my opinion, so I'll give it. I've seen that article before and it's more or less a regurgitation of NIST's theory with one extra added element, that WTC7 was built over an electrical substation. The problem with the authors' theory is the same as with NIST's theory. It relies on the failure of a single column which initiates the progressive collapse of the entire building. It fails to take into account that column 79 could not have failed in the manner described by NIST. It also starts with the very same ASSUMPTION, that because the penthouse was seen collapsing first, it points to the failure of column 79 but never provides proof that this actually happened. It also fails to explain how WTC7 could possibly collapse globally, symmetrically and at free fall acceleration due to the failure of one single column. If you want a more detailed and much more expert explanation, I already provided a link to one video and you can browse this website for more: 911speakout.org/?page_id=8It details quite well just how possible the column 79 theory is. No one can say for sure what exactly happened. They can only examine the evidence and see what theories it supports. The evidence supports the column 79 theory. I don't see what makes your link "more expert."
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 11, 2014 22:45:25 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, you brought it up and you're looking for my opinion, so I'll give it. I've seen that article before and it's more or less a regurgitation of NIST's theory with one extra added element, that WTC7 was built over an electrical substation. The problem with the authors' theory is the same as with NIST's theory. It relies on the failure of a single column which initiates the progressive collapse of the entire building. It fails to take into account that column 79 could not have failed in the manner described by NIST. It also starts with the very same ASSUMPTION, that because the penthouse was seen collapsing first, it points to the failure of column 79 but never provides proof that this actually happened. It also fails to explain how WTC7 could possibly collapse globally, symmetrically and at free fall acceleration due to the failure of one single column. If you want a more detailed and much more expert explanation, I already provided a link to one video and you can browse this website for more: 911speakout.org/?page_id=8It details quite well just how possible the column 79 theory is. No one can say for sure what exactly happened. They can only examine the evidence and see what theories it supports. The evidence supports the column 79 theory. I don't see what makes your link "more expert." What evidence do you believe supports the column 79 theory? My guess is you haven't seen one video from any of the links I provided, you responded far too quickly and there is just way too much to review and study. In any case, I meant more expert than myself. I'm not an expert and never claimed to be one. However, I do have enough of a background in physics, engineering, mathematics, logistics and other sciences to be able to understand related concepts. Here are 4 detailed videos as to why the column 79 theory is impossible: aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/46/nist-fraud-revealedand another on the absurd NIST animation model: aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/8922/nist-fraud-revisitedYou're right, no one can say for sure what happened but one can say for sure what didn't happen or more accurately, what could not have possibly happened. NIST's case fails on many different levels, the most basic of which is physics. A bit more complicated is that it is fraudulent to propose a theory based on lies. And even more fraudulent is that NIST was tasked with a forensic INVESTIGATION, not to create a theory based on a preconceived conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 6:13:46 GMT -5
It details quite well just how possible the column 79 theory is. No one can say for sure what exactly happened. They can only examine the evidence and see what theories it supports. The evidence supports the column 79 theory. I don't see what makes your link "more expert." What evidence do you believe supports the column 79 theory? My guess is you haven't seen one video from any of the links I provided, you responded far too quickly and there is just way too much to review and study. In any case, I meant more expert than myself. I'm not an expert and never claimed to be one. However, I do have enough of a background in physics, engineering, mathematics, logistics and other sciences to be able to understand related concepts. Here are 4 detailed videos as to why the column 79 theory is impossible: aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/46/nist-fraud-revealedand another on the absurd NIST animation model: aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/8922/nist-fraud-revisitedYou're right, no one can say for sure what happened but one can say for sure what didn't happen or more accurately, what could not have possibly happened. NIST's case fails on many different levels, the most basic of which is physics. A bit more complicated is that it is fraudulent to propose a theory based on lies. And even more fraudulent is that NIST was tasked with a forensic INVESTIGATION, not to create a theory based on a preconceived conclusion. I started watching and realized they were videos I had already seen. Ive examined the evidence and the column 79 theory is possible imho. I can't say that is definitely what happened, but anyone saying that definitely isn't what happened is not examining all the evidence with an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2014 6:33:23 GMT -5
What evidence do you believe supports the column 79 theory? My guess is you haven't seen one video from any of the links I provided, you responded far too quickly and there is just way too much to review and study. In any case, I meant more expert than myself. I'm not an expert and never claimed to be one. However, I do have enough of a background in physics, engineering, mathematics, logistics and other sciences to be able to understand related concepts. Here are 4 detailed videos as to why the column 79 theory is impossible: aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/46/nist-fraud-revealedand another on the absurd NIST animation model: aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/8922/nist-fraud-revisitedYou're right, no one can say for sure what happened but one can say for sure what didn't happen or more accurately, what could not have possibly happened. NIST's case fails on many different levels, the most basic of which is physics. A bit more complicated is that it is fraudulent to propose a theory based on lies. And even more fraudulent is that NIST was tasked with a forensic INVESTIGATION, not to create a theory based on a preconceived conclusion. I started watching and realized they were videos I had already seen. Ive examined the evidence and the column 79 theory is possible imho. I can't say that is definitely what happened, but anyone saying that definitely isn't what happened is not examining all the evidence with an open mind. However, you can't come up with any evidence that shows the column 79 theory is possible (since I asked you and you haven't done so). Regurgitating a theory based on faulty evidence (drawings with missing critical structural components and concocted data) is not any kind of evidence. IMO anyone who believes WTC7 collapsed in the manner it did due to the failure of a single column does not understand physics. Anyone who believes NIST did its job does not understand the issues. And all that is especially true given the claim that one has seen all the videos. I can't say what happened either but I can say just by observation and study of all 3 collapses that not one collapse was natural.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 7:58:44 GMT -5
I started watching and realized they were videos I had already seen. Ive examined the evidence and the column 79 theory is possible imho. I can't say that is definitely what happened, but anyone saying that definitely isn't what happened is not examining all the evidence with an open mind. However, you can't come up with any evidence that shows the column 79 theory is possible (since I asked you and you haven't done so). Regurgitating a theory based on faulty evidence (drawings with missing critical structural components and concocted data) is not any kind of evidence. IMO anyone who believes WTC7 collapsed in the manner it did due to the failure of a single column does not understand physics. Anyone who believes NIST did its job does not understand the issues. And all that is especially true given the claim that one has seen all the videos. I can't say what happened either but I can say just by observation and study of all 3 collapses that not one collapse was natural. Except that I did provide. You don't have agree with it, but can't just pretend it wasn't provided. My acedemic recorded show perfect scores in two college level physics courses. To be more specific, the only point I lost in those two semesters was because I missed a question that was on the back of a page. I'm in my 18th year as a mechanical designer. Do you really want to say I don't understand physics? Let's here your credentials, bobby. Of course the collapses weren't natural. There is nothing natural about airliners crashing into skyscrapers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2014 8:38:33 GMT -5
However, you can't come up with any evidence that shows the column 79 theory is possible (since I asked you and you haven't done so). Regurgitating a theory based on faulty evidence (drawings with missing critical structural components and concocted data) is not any kind of evidence. IMO anyone who believes WTC7 collapsed in the manner it did due to the failure of a single column does not understand physics. Anyone who believes NIST did its job does not understand the issues. And all that is especially true given the claim that one has seen all the videos. I can't say what happened either but I can say just by observation and study of all 3 collapses that not one collapse was natural. Except that I did provide. You don't have agree with it, but can't just pretend it wasn't provided. My acedemic recorded show perfect scores in two college level physics courses. To be more specific, the only point I lost in those two semesters was because I missed a question that was on the back of a page. I'm in my 18th year as a mechanical designer. Do you really want to say I don't understand physics? Let's here your credentials, bobby. Of course the collapses weren't natural. There is nothing natural about airliners crashing into skyscrapers. I already posted my general background, not that it's relevant and you haven't provided any evidence to show that the alleged theoretical failure of column 79 led to the collapse of WTC7 in such fashion, despite your insistence. The collapses were unnatural with regard to the manner in which they collapsed. Coming back to the same BS that 2 planes caused the collapse of 3 steel high rise framed towers is intellectually dishonest (but typical) since no plane hit WTC7. With such a claimed background in physics, you ought to know much better than that. Regardless, like I said in the first place, it's not my job to try to convince you of anything. If you're comfortable with the official narrative, even when it has been proven to be based on massive fraud, it's ok with me. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make the horse drink it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 9:07:15 GMT -5
Except that I did provide. You don't have agree with it, but can't just pretend it wasn't provided. My acedemic recorded show perfect scores in two college level physics courses. To be more specific, the only point I lost in those two semesters was because I missed a question that was on the back of a page. I'm in my 18th year as a mechanical designer. Do you really want to say I don't understand physics? Let's here your credentials, bobby. Of course the collapses weren't natural. There is nothing natural about airliners crashing into skyscrapers. I already posted my general background, not that it's relevant and you haven't provided any evidence to show that the alleged theoretical failure of column 79 led to the collapse of WTC7 in such fashion, despite your insistence. The collapses were unnatural with regard to the manner in which they collapsed. Coming back to the same BS that 2 planes caused the collapse of 3 steel high rise framed towers is intellectually dishonest (but typical) since no plane hit WTC7. With such a claimed background in physics, you ought to know much better than that. Regardless, like I said in the first place, it's not my job to try to convince you of anything. If you're comfortable with the official narrative, even when it has been proven to be based on massive fraud, it's ok with me. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make the horse drink it. I've provided you with the evidence that is possible. Interesting that you would I haven't provided evidence that it did lead to the collapse considering you've admitted the only thing we can to is theorize based on the evidence. You can keep citing that loony tune further line about no plane having hit building 7, but we both know that's a straw man. There was no claim that one did. Photographic evidence shows the structural damage from debris and the resulting fires. My physics education tells me how they came down was unlikely, but not impossible. I've examined the data and it definitely is possible as well as supported by the data. See here we are just discussing the matter, but when I don't cave to see things your way then you turn into a $%#$@ing asshole. We're done here, bobby. I tried one last time to have an actual discussion with and you proved once again you are incapable.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2014 10:03:01 GMT -5
"I've provided you with the evidence that is possible."
You provided me with NIST's theory and another link that parrots it. That is not evidence.
"Interesting that you would I haven't provided evidence that it did lead to the collapse considering you've admitted the only thing we can to is theorize based on the evidence."
I've never admitted any such thing. What I did say is that certain things can be eliminated based on science and the evidence. The column 79 theory is one of them.
"You can keep citing that loony tune further line about no plane having hit building 7, but we both know that's a straw man. There was no claim that one did."
By stating that planes hit the buildings, a typical response when a denier is confronted with the collapse of WTC7, you've created the straw man, not I.
"Photographic evidence shows the structural damage from debris and the resulting fires."
No one is arguing that issue. It's not about that, it's about the collapse of 3 steel frame high rise towers or in this case, more specifically the collapse of WTC7.
"My physics education tells me how they came down was unlikely, but not impossible. I've examined the data and it definitely is possible as well as supported by the data."
I disagree and so do thousands of experts. You're way out of your league on this one. But you certainly have every right to your opinion.
"See here we are just discussing the matter, but when I don't cave to see things your way then you turn into a %$&@ing asshole. We're done here, bobby. I tried one last time to have an actual discussion with and you proved once again you are incapable."
I'm sorry you feel that way and the need for name calling, the same could be said about you. There's no need to get angry because we disagree, that's kind of childish. I have no problem whatsoever with you ending the discussion. The issue is not about you or me, we are both insignificant relative to the 9/11 issue. It seems to me however that all the time you've spent posting in this thread could have been put to better use reviewing the video I provided for you that you claimed you had no time for.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 10:28:28 GMT -5
"I've provided you with the evidence that is possible."You provided me with NIST's theory and another link that parrots it. That is not evidence. I've provided you with another analysis that agrees with the NIST's analysis. The use of "parrots" is a tactic to dismiss the analysis rather than address it of a factual basis."Interesting that you would I haven't provided evidence that it did lead to the collapse considering you've admitted the only thing we can to is theorize based on the evidence."I've never admitted any such thing. What I did say is that certain things can be eliminated based on science and the evidence. The column 79 theory is one of them. It always pains me that people here are dumb enough to think that I can't just go back and copy what they said. Was this not you, bobby? "You're right, no one can say for sure what happened..." You are agreeing that we can only examine the evidence and see what theories it supports because "no one can say for sure what happened.""You can keep citing that loony tune further line about no plane having hit building 7, but we both know that's a straw man. There was no claim that one did."By stating that planes hit the buildings, a typical response when a denier is confronted with the collapse of WTC7, you've created the straw man, not I. Planes did hit the buildings. I never said a plane hit WTC-7. You're trying to parse my words to make it seem as if I said something I didn't. I've been discussing the damage to WTC-7 caused by the collapsing towers all along and suddenly you want to pretend I've implied that a plane hit WTC-7? What kind of dishonest prick are you?"Photographic evidence shows the structural damage from debris and the resulting fires."No one is arguing that issue. It's not about that, it's about the collapse of 3 steel frame high rise towers or in this case, more specifically the collapse of WTC7. You are when you try to claim I've said a plane hit WTC-7. Are you following this conversation at all?"My physics education tells me how they came down was unlikely, but not impossible. I've examined the data and it definitely is possible as well as supported by the data."I disagree and so do thousands of experts. You're way out of your league on this one. But you certainly have every right to your opinion. And there are many experts that agree with me. You can keep trying to dismiss my credentials here, but we still don't know what exactly yours are. From what I can see, you're just spewing what others are feeding you."See here we are just discussing the matter, but when I don't cave to see things your way then you turn into a %$&@ing asshole. We're done here, bobby. I tried one last time to have an actual discussion with and you proved once again you are incapable."I'm sorry you feel that way and the need for name calling, the same could be said about you. There's no need to get angry because we disagree, that's kind of childish. I have no problem whatsoever with you ending the discussion. The issue is not about you or me, we are both insignificant relative to the 9/11 issue. It seems to me however that all the time you've spent posting in this thread could have been put to better use reviewing the video I provided for you that you claimed you had no time for. I don't feel that way, bobby. That's exactly what happened. You can't just discuss it and disagree. You have to turn into a condescending, rude, insulting asshole. That's not me being angry. That's me calling a spade a spade. The real anger comes out of you when you can't get someone else to see things your way. It literally happens every time we have ever tried to discuss this. I reviewed the videos already. I told you that. either way, concern yourself with your time, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2014 10:49:42 GMT -5
And here I thought you wanted to end the discussion. Let's see, you called me a "%$&@ing asshole" and now a "rude, insulting asshole", then claim "That's me calling a spade a spade. The real anger comes out of you when you can't get someone else to see things your way."
It sure looks to me like YOUR ANGER as a result of the fact that we disagree reduces YOU to childish name calling. Can I expect another response filled with angry name calling as an epilogue to this epilogue? That's rhetorical.
BTW, you're absolutely right, this "discussion" has degenerated into a lot of irrelevant BS from you and I'm really not interested. You have your beliefs, stick with them, like I said multiple times, it's not my job to convince you of anything. Even better, you said you're already convinced and would like to retain your blinders on this matter (despite your claim that you're allegedly open to a "new" investigation), so there's no need to go any further anyway.
|
|