NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

[WildCat]

Oh I read it.
Then why don't you know about the fireproofing?

Don't know your own religion?
I'm an atheist.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Then why don't you know about the fireproofing?

I do. Show me where I am wrong.


I'm an atheist.

You have a lot of faith and not much more for an atheist.

[WildCat]

I do. Show me where I am wrong.
When you claimed the "official story" was that it fell off.

[Grizzly Bear]

However, it is a pity that NIST cannot produce any details about this software. Sounds magic!
Apparently the software that AE911 is using must be magic too... they apparently used the same software to do whatever models they put out, whether they did so correctly or not...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I do. Show me where I am wrong.


I don't believe that is necessary. You know exactly where you're wrong. To deny that is to admit that you know little about the topic on which you speak. Strange that I have more confidence in your knowledge than you do...

[jaydeehess]

So the only thing foreseen to help with the apparently well known potential of steel to expand in a fire was the spray on fire proofing that according to the official version just fell off? ..............

......I do. Show me where I am wrong.
.

Well I just checked and I cannot find anywhere in the WTC 7 report where NIST says the SFRM just fell off.

Its your claim they did, prove it. Give us a quote and page number, or admit you got nothing.

Perhaps you missed the part of the report dealing with asymettric beam placement and its effect under extreme thermal expansion.

[Pardalis]

Re-bump for RedIbis.

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:


WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.



RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.


Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

Afraid to address the point?

[funk de fino]

Why won't you post the link for this?

For what? The picture?

[funk de fino]

Doesn't look like a classic total collapse to me! Left side remains standing, etc.

Fire caused complete collapse of the steel frame sections aside from the sections at the bottom which had bricks and mortar up to around 15 feet or more. Building next door gave support.

[The Doc]

Skimming over this thread I'm realizing how far behind I am in my research. I've had a busy few months and have yet to read the WTC7 report.

I haven't seen any riots in the street yet, however, so I assume that an inside job is not what NIST eventually concluded.

[Heiwa]

Apparently the software that AE911 is using must be magic too... they apparently used the same software to do whatever models they put out, whether they did so correctly or not...

??? Haven't seen any AE911 structural analysis software. Pls provide link to the NIST software that, (1) does intact structural analysis, (2) pinpoints the first failure, (3) recalculates the structural analysis with first failure -new damage analysis + deformations, (4), keeps tracks of any loose parts due to (2), (5) does analyse again the next step in the destruction, (6) pinpoints the second failure, (7) recalculates the analysis with second failure -renewed damage analysis, (8) keeps tracks of more loose parts, etc, etc.
I like that the software can print out any stage of destruction with parts flying around. Who has written this fantastic software? And what type of computer can handle it?

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps you should sent NIST some pizza boxes so they can update their procedures.

[dtugg]

Hey Heiwa, congratulations on your Stundie Award victory for the month of November! Do you mind if I share some of the honor since I nominated you?

[Grizzly Bear]

??? Haven't seen any AE911 structural analysis software. Pls provide link to the NIST software that, (1) does intact structural analysis, (2) pinpoints the first failure, (3) recalculates the structural analysis with first failure -new damage analysis + deformations, (4), keeps tracks of any loose parts due to (2), (5) does analyse again the next step in the destruction, (6) pinpoints the second failure, (7) recalculates the analysis with second failure -renewed damage analysis, (8) keeps tracks of more loose parts, etc, etc.
I like that the software can print out any stage of destruction with parts flying around. Who has written this fantastic software? And what type of computer can handle it?

I don't know Heiwa, apparently just about any software is fantasy as far as NIST is concerned... just don't tell that to these guys (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4200594&postcount=363). They apparently didn't get the NWO memo... :|

[Heiwa]

I don't know Heiwa, apparently just about any software is fantasy as far as NIST is concerned... just don't tell that to these guys (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4200594&postcount=363). They apparently didn't get the NWO memo... :|

I am one of those guys:)-

What about the FEA + loose parts flying around software? Any clues where NIST got it from? I would guess some Hollywood outfit!

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well I just checked and I cannot find anywhere in the WTC 7 report where NIST says the SFRM just fell off.

Its your claim they did, prove it. Give us a quote and page number, or admit you got nothing.

Perhaps you missed the part of the report dealing with asymettric beam placement and its effect under extreme thermal expansion.


Sigh... everything has to be spelled out for some people.

I never said it fell off of WTC-7.

But I think some of you know I was using the towers as an example in the same manner some here used pictures of bridges to claim thermal expansion is a long well known phenomenon that can happen. I think some people are just being conveniently ignorant. How surprising.

So I ask again if it's so well known then how was it considered in the building of the WTC complex? And how many other steel constructed high-rise buildings have suffered complete collapse because of it?

[dtugg]

So I ask again if it's so well known then how was it considered in the building of the WTC complex? And how many other steel constructed high-rise buildings have suffered complete collapse because of it?

How many other steel framed skyscrapers had multi-floor fires which were totally unfought or seven hours, and were predicted to collapse by the fire department?

[jaydeehess]

Sigh... everything has to be spelled out for some people.

I never said it fell off of WTC-7.

Oh dear, my bad. This thread concerns WTC 7 and you stated in post 244
So the only thing foreseen to help with the apparently well known potential of steel to expand in a fire was the spray on fire proofing that according to the official version just fell off?

So naturally I assumed you were speaking on the subject of this thread.

I did not mention that spray on "fire proofing" (a misnomer given that nothing is a complete prophylaxis against fire damage) is rated for specific times. The insulation simply slows the rate at which the steel heats up. It still heats up and as the rated time approaches the insulation is less and less effective at its job. After that time it cannot be assumed tohave any effect on the transfer of heat. This building had fires that went unfought. Fires in the building burned until they exhausted the fuel or the building fell down.



So I ask again if it's so well known then how was it considered in the building of the WTC complex? And how many other steel constructed high-rise buildings have suffered complete collapse because of it?

Few have suffered complete collapse but I see that you ignore the contribution of assymetric placement of the beams in question. I ask you then, how many examples of fires in structures with such assymetry are there to compare with? NIST states that this was an important contributor to the collapse.

WTC 7 is building constructed over an existing building, with many non-standard angles, large area spaces etc. NIST illustrates examples of the effects of thermal expansion in other structure fires and examines how this would affect the structural members in WTC 7 taking into consideration the way that specific building was put together.

Did the original designers take this into account several deacades ago when they did not have the advantage of the high speed computers that present day NIST has? Did they mistakenly assume that the assymetry would have little effect? I don't know, but they did not tie the beams into the concrete better either and they did leave very large open spaces in the floor plans so perhaps it was overlooked. My guess though is that it was more a case of not having the tools to do the modelling that NIST did do let alone the money to do it.

This goes back to the space shuttle comparison. How many shuttles have ever suffered complete mission failure due to foam/ice impacts on take off? ONE! Until that time there had been many instances of foam or ice impacts at lift off but no complete loss of the mission either in space or on re-entry. By the logic of 'it never has happened in the past so it cannot have happened on 911', Columbia should still be part of the shuttle fleet.

WTC 7 and the shuttle have one thing in common, they are special cases in their general categories of buildings and aircraft.

[Homeland Insurgency]

How many other steel framed skyscrapers had multi-floor fires which were totally unfought or seven hours, and were predicted to collapse by the fire department?

Skyscraper fires weren't invented on 9/11 but yes I'll bet in the past and in the future no one will predict a collapse.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

[Homeland Insurgency]

Oh dear, my bad. This thread concerns WTC 7 and you stated in post 244


So naturally I assumed you were speaking on the subject of this thread.

I did not mention that spray on "fire proofing" (a misnomer given that nothing is a complete prophylaxis against fire damage) is rated for specific times. The insulation simply slows the rate at which the steel heats up. It still heats up and as the rated time approaches the insulation is less and less effective at its job. After that time it cannot be assumed tohave any effect on the transfer of heat. This building had fires that went unfought. Fires in the building burned until they exhausted the fuel or the building fell down.

Few have suffered complete collapse but I see that you ignore the contribution of assymetric placement of the beams in question. I ask you then, how many examples of fires in structures with such assymetry are there to compare with? NIST states that this was an important contributor to the collapse.

WTC 7 is building constructed over an existing building, with many non-standard angles, large area spaces etc. NIST illustrates examples of the effects of thermal expansion in other structure fires and examines how this would affect the structural members in WTC 7 taking into consideration the way that specific building was put together.

Did the original designers take this into account several deacades ago when they did not have the advantage of the high speed computers that present day NIST has? Did they mistakenly assume that the assymetry would have little effect? I don't know, but they did not tie the beams into the concrete better either and they did leave very large open spaces in the floor plans so perhaps it was overlooked. My guess though is that it was more a case of not having the tools to do the modelling that NIST did do let alone the money to do it.

This goes back to the space shuttle comparison. How many shuttles have ever suffered complete mission failure due to foam/ice impacts on take off? ONE! Until that time there had been many instances of foam or ice impacts at lift off but no complete loss of the mission either in space or on re-entry. By the logic of 'it never has happened in the past so it cannot have happened on 911', Columbia should still be part of the shuttle fleet.

WTC 7 and the shuttle have one thing in common, they are special cases in their general categories of buildings and aircraft.

Few have suffered complete collapse? None have ever suffered complete collapse.

Now your story is 3 complete collapses for two different reasons all on the same day.

Brilliant.

[DGM]

Skyscraper fires weren't invented on 9/11 but yes I'll bet in the past and in the future no one will predict a collapse.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
What the hell are you talking about? Do you know of a good comparison to WTC 7 that didn't collapse?

[Homeland Insurgency]

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know of a good comparison to WTC 7 that didn't collapse?

So now WTC-7 was the only skyscraper to ever go on fire for 7 hours or longer? I guess you missed my link.

[dtugg]

So now WTC-7 was the only skyscraper to ever go on fire for 7 hours or longer? I guess you missed my link.

Nowhere in that link does it show a steel framed skyscraper that had multi story, totally unfought fires for seven hours and predicted to collapse by the FIRE DEPARTMENT.

[DGM]

So now WTC-7 was the only skyscraper to ever go on fire for 7 hours or longer? I guess you missed my link.
UN-FOUGHT.

Are you impaired?

[Homeland Insurgency]

UN-FOUGHT.

Are you impaired?

Are you impaired? WTC-7 was on fire for seven hours and not even completely. I linked to fires that went for 17-19 hours. What were they fighting those fires with for 17 hours? Gasoline?

[DGM]

Are you impaired? WTC-7 was on fire for seven hours and not even completely. I linked to fires that went for 17-19 hours. What were they fighting those fires with for 17 hours? Gasoline?
Ah Meridian plaza the fire that was finally suppressed by the sprinklers on the 30th floor. Don't forget the steel portion did collapse.

Hey try again.

Remember UN-FOUGHT

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ah Meridian plaza the fire that was finally suppressed by the sprinklers on the 30th floor. Don't forget the steel portion did collapse.

Hey try again.

Remember UN-FOUGHT

I wasn't talking about Meridian. Meridian went even longer. "Portion" is the operative word there in your reply.

And if WTC-7 was totally UN-FOUGHT then why don't you Mr debunker explain what Silverstein meant by "pull" if not the firefighters?

[DGM]

I wasn't talking about Meridian. Meridian went even longer. "Portion" is the operative word there in your reply.

And if WTC-7 was totally UN-FOUGHT then why don't you Mr debunker explain what Silverstein meant by "pull" if not the firefighters?
Silverstein never gave "the order" to anyone. He was just reaffirming what the FDNY already did hours before.

[dtugg]

And if WTC-7 was totally UN-FOUGHT then why don't you Mr debunker explain what Silverstein meant by "pull" if not the firefighters?

So now the FDNY is lying about this? Cool. Thanks for clearing it up.

Silverstein wasn't even there. And his "pull it" quote was taken from an interview a year (I think) later. And he could have just been talking about pulling firefighters from near the area since it was evident it was going to collapse.

[Tbone]

Now your story is 3 complete collapses for two different reasons all on the same day.

Well, that's because they were caused by two different reasons. Are you saying that this would be less suspicious (in your mind) if it was 3 collapses for the same reason (despite two different buildings) or 3 reasons for 3 buildings (despite that two buildings has the same thing done to them)?

[Ragnarok]

Nowhere in that link does it show a steel framed skyscraper that had multi story, totally unfought fires for seven hours and predicted to collapse by the FIRE DEPARTMENT.

Erm...the Fire Department had already seen two buildings collapse that day, so it's no surprise that they might have predicted it happening a third time. But, would they have made the same prediction, had the events 7 hours earlier not transpired? And what would they have based their prediction on?

[Homeland Insurgency]

So now the FDNY is lying about this? Cool. Thanks for clearing it up.

Silverstein wasn't even there. And his "pull it" quote was taken from an interview a year (I think) later. And he could have just been talking about pulling firefighters from near the area since it was evident it was going to collapse.

Who said the firefighters are lying?

It's more like you claiming that firefighters don't fight fire. Because if firefighters were "pulled" from WTC-7 then why was the fire totally UNFOUGHT?

What were they doing in there if not fighting the fire?

[Grizzly Bear]

Erm...the Fire Department had already seen two buildings collapse that day, so it's no surprise that they might have predicted it happening a third time. But, would they have made the same prediction, had the events 7 hours earlier not transpired? And what would they have based their prediction on?
Partly correct but having the other towers collapse was not the only indicator that they were going by. There were numerous reports of creaking, and visual structural instability prior to the collapse.

[dtugg]

Erm...the Fire Department had already seen two buildings collapse that day, so it's no surprise that they might have predicted it happening a third time. But, would they have made the same prediction, had the events 7 hours earlier not transpired? And what would they have based their prediction on?

Here is the word from the man that was in charge that day. Somehow, twoofers think they know more than him. Or he is in on it.


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

[DGM]

Erm...the Fire Department had already seen two buildings collapse that day, so it's no surprise that they might have predicted it happening a third time. But, would they have made the same prediction, had the events 7 hours earlier not transpired? And what would they have based their prediction on?
Talk to firefighters about "truss framed" buildings and you'll know why they say "never trust a truss".

[dtugg]

Who said the firefighters are lying?

It's more like you claiming that firefighters don't fight fire. Because if firefighters were "pulled" from WTC-7 then why was the fire totally UNFOUGHT?

What were they doing in there if not fighting the fire?

So how did they fight the fire when there was no water to do so? Or is somebody lying about that?

[Thunder]

Here is the word from the man that was in charge that day. Somehow, twoofers think they know more than him. Or he is in on it.

Wow. I had no idea Dan Nigro was a NWO Zionist shill.

[Grizzly Bear]

It's more like you claiming that firefighters don't fight fire. Because if firefighters were "pulled" from WTC-7 then why was the fire totally UNFOUGHT?
Apparently by your book the only thing firefighters do is fight fires... eh?


What were they doing in there if not fighting the fire?
I'm sure you could realize what other things they were doing... two buildings collapsed before WTC 7. I could think of a few things they might have had their minds on... other than a lack of resources to fight a fire. Just think about it! I'm sure you'll think of it! ... der hopefully....

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well, that's because they were caused by two different reasons. Are you saying that this would be less suspicious (in your mind) if it was 3 collapses for the same reason (despite two different buildings) or 3 reasons for 3 buildings (despite that two buildings has the same thing done to them)?

Any steel structure skyscraper collapsing because of fire is suspicious. Three in one day is a miracle. If you believe in miracles.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Apparently by your book the only thing firefighters do is fight fires... eh?
I'm sure you could realize what other things they were doing... two buildings collapsed before WTC 7. I could think of a few things they might be doing if they don't have resources to fight a fire. Just think about it! I'm sure you'll think of it! ... der hopefully....

Ok I'm game. What were the firefighters "pulled" from doing? eh? der duhhhhhh buuuuuunka?????

[Tbone]

Any steel structure skyscraper collapsing because of fire is suspicious. Three in one day is a miracle. If you believe in miracles.

I wouldn't call anything that happed on 9/11 a miracle. A rather odd word choice.

Also, answer the question please.

[DGM]

Any steel structure skyscraper collapsing because of fire is suspicious. Three in one day is a miracle. If you believe in miracles.
Only if thousands* of people don't witness what actually happened.

*more like millions*

[WildCat]

Ok I'm game. What were the firefighters "pulled" from doing? eh? der duhhhhhh buuuuuunka?????
You really don't know?

[dtugg]

Any steel structure skyscraper collapsing because of fire is suspicious. Three in one day is a miracle. If you believe in miracles.

Please explain why the FDNY predicted it would collapse. Are you smarter than firefighters that were there? Were they in on it?

[Grizzly Bear]

ok i'm game. What were the firefighters "pulled" from doing? Eh? Der duhhhhhh buuuuuunka?????

............................................______ __........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:, ........
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
.................../.................................................. .........,}....
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./.....
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............

[DGM]

Ok I'm game. What were the firefighters "pulled" from doing? eh? der duhhhhhh buuuuuunka?????
It is true. He has no clue what firefighters actually do.

[Tbone]

Ok I'm game. What were the firefighters "pulled" from doing? eh? der duhhhhhh buuuuuunka?????

Huh, I guess that paramedic training firefighters go through is just something to keep them busy in school.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Oh!!! They were "pulled" from rescuing people?

LOL!!!

Who wasn't rescued from WTC-7 because the firefighters had to be pulled?

I can't wait for this. Are you guys the third-string debunkers? I'm feeling kinda cheated here.

BAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[dtugg]

Oh!!! They were "pulled" from rescuing people?

LOL!!!

Who wasn't rescued from WTC-7 because the firefighters had to be pulled?

I can't wait for this. Are you guys the third-string debunkers? I'm feeling kinda cheated here.

BAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling?

Do you really think that it is unthinkable that there were rescue operations going on in an area where two skyscrapers just collapsed? FYI, rescue operations went on for a long time. Firefighters even got in fights with cops when it was decided that they would stop.

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh!!! They were "pulled" from rescuing people?

LOL!!!

Who wasn't rescued from WTC-7 because the firefighters had to be pulled?

I can't wait for this. Are you guys the third-string debunkers? I'm feeling kinda cheated here.

BAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Yes I'm sure I'd also want to be standing near a building that's in danger of collapse while searching for survivors in the rubble pile of another nearby collapsed building.

Yes I'm sure I want people walking right next to a compromised building with no concern for public or rescuer safety.

[DGM]

Oh!!! They were "pulled" from rescuing people?

LOL!!!

Who wasn't rescued from WTC-7 because the firefighters had to be pulled?

I can't wait for this. Are you guys the third-string debunkers? I'm feeling kinda cheated here.

BAHAHAHAHAH!!!
The collapse area (answering a question only a moron would ask)

Are you the best "truther" left? You need to kick it up a notch, your boring me.

[Homeland Insurgency]

The collapse area (answering a question only a moron would ask)

Are you the best "truther" left? You need to kick it up a notch, your boring me.

lol

[Homeland Insurgency]

So who got left behind when the firefighters were "pulled" from the evacuation? I guess the "pull" was just in the nick of time huh?

[dtugg]

So who got left behind when the firefighters were "pulled" from the evacuation? I guess the "pull" was just in the nick of time huh?

Perhaps nobody. That doesn't mean that they weren't looking for people. They were. And since it was predicted that WTC7 would collapse, many people's lives would be endangered by doing so. Nigro had a difficult decision to make, and I think he made the right one.

[Tbone]

So who got left behind when the firefighters were "pulled" from the evacuation? I guess the "pull" was just in the nick of time huh?

People that may have been trapped under rubble. They were searching for possible survivors.

[DGM]

lol
Yes, laughing is my only logical response to you.

Plan to kick it up with some real criticism of the WTC 7 report (that I know you haven't read). I have. Care to give it a go?

[Homeland Insurgency]

People that may have been trapped under rubble. They were searching for possible survivors.

Who died in WTC-7? Who was not evacuated, saved, or given first-aid because the firefighters had to be "pulled"?

[dtugg]

Who died in WTC-7? Who was not evacuated, saved, or given first-aid because the firefighters had to be "pulled"?

Who says anybody died because rescue operations had to be pulled? It is possible that nobody did. But it is a fact that they were looking for survivors and the collapse of WTC7 would have killed people that were close to it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But, would they have made the same prediction, had the events 7 hours earlier not transpired? And what would they have based their prediction on?


Of course not. If WTC1 hadn't collapsed, it wouldn't have severely damaged WTC7 and there would no reason to believe it was in danger of collapsing.

Any steel structure skyscraper collapsing because of fire is suspicious. Three in one day is a miracle. If you believe in miracles.


Don't forget the structural damage.

Ok I'm game. What were the firefighters "pulled" from doing? eh? der duhhhhhh buuuuuunka?????


Search and rescue in the debris pile of WTCs 1 & 2, in the vicinity of WTC7. A lot of their fellow firefighters were in the shadow of the towers when they collapsed.

Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling?


Trolling. Don't let it get to you.

[UNLoVedRebel]

If only there were video footage of the inside of wtc 7 on 9/11 that would show if the building was set for controlled demolition. Oh that's right there is footage and yet no stripped columns, no miles of wiring, no "cutter charges." CASE CLOSED!

kMr3ZSL6l-4

[Tbone]

Who died in WTC-7? Who was not evacuated, saved, or given first-aid because the firefighters had to be "pulled"?

You seem to have misread my post.


Why do you keep highlighting "fighters?" I can only assume it is because you wish to attempt to try to insult firefighters by trying to diminish their roles in responding to medical emergencies, not just fires. Have ever had the occasion to call 911 (if in NA) for an ambulance? Almost inevitably, a firetruck will show up first.

[dtugg]

Trolling. Don't let it get to you.

Oh, nothing the twoofers say gets to me. I just enjoy messing with and laughing at them.

[R.Mackey]

Erm...the Fire Department had already seen two buildings collapse that day, so it's no surprise that they might have predicted it happening a third time. But, would they have made the same prediction, had the events 7 hours earlier not transpired? And what would they have based their prediction on?

If you claim the FDNY thought WTC 7 might collapse simply because of WTC 1 and 2, how you do explain them trying to fight WTC 7 for two hours after those structures collapsed?

Their decision to give up on WTC 7 was based, among other things, on visible, quantified signs of structural distress. And see Chief Nigro's comments, above.

They did not, at 8 AM on Sept. 11th, think that no steel frame structure could possibly collapse in a fire. And, likewise, they did not think WTC 7 might collapse only on the basis of WTC 1 and 2, or on "being told" by some mysterious little bird, or what have you. They were professionals, and they understood the risks of fires in tall structures. Risks that they prepared for, risks that they responded to appropriately, and risks that have absolutely nothing to do with explosvies or thermite or space beams. And as a result, nobody was killed in WTC 7.

Very, very, very simple.

[RedIbis]

If you claim the FDNY thought WTC 7 might collapse simply because of WTC 1 and 2, how you do explain them trying to fight WTC 7 for two hours after those structures collapsed?


Very, very, very simple.

Apparently it's not that simple. Do you disagree with Shyam Sunder that there was no firefighting operation for WTC 7?

[R.Mackey]

Semantics.

FDNY did try to fight it. They just couldn't do much.

False Precision fallacy. Dr. Sunder is correct, but only at a coarse level. Rather than mine his comments, why not respond to the point?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Either way, there was an operation near the building. Good thing FDNY made the decision to "pull it" away.

Afb7eUHr64U&feature=channel_page

[RedIbis]

Semantics.

FDNY did try to fight it. They just couldn't do much.

False Precision fallacy. Dr. Sunder is correct, but only at a coarse level. Rather than mine his comments, why not respond to the point?

Talk about semantics. Either there was a firefighting operation (two hours by your account) or there was not.

Which is it?

[R.Mackey]

Talk about semantics. Either there was a firefighting operation (two hours by your account) or there was not.

Which is it?

There was. This is the "activity" that Chief Nigro was referring to in his quote, reprinted above.

However, it would be correct to state that the operation was primarily one of assessment and recovery/rescue of personnel, and that at no point were they positioned to get the upper hand on the fire itself.

That's your semantics. Now, care to address the point, which is that firefighters did not immediately give up on WTC 7, but only cleared a collapse zone after it began to degrade? Or are you just going to snipe, as usual?

[Jonnyclueless]

I guess these guys are lucky they can come here and make these accusation instead of having to say these things in front of the firefighters would probably assault these kids physically.

[A W Smith]

Who died in WTC-7? Who was not evacuated, saved, or given first-aid because the firefighters had to be "pulled"?


they were pulled from an area within the collapse perimeter. where they were looking for survivors and remains from the collapse of the towers . not building seven. seven had already been evacuated. are you really that stupid?

[Arus808]

the same old rehashed claims from homeland. Homeland come up with something new. What you're stating was debunked in 2006. its now 2008.

[Pardalis]

I see RedIbis has shown his face in this thread again.

So could you address this please?:
He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:


WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.



RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.


Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.
You know, the more you ignore it the more obvious your dishonesty gets.

Just saying.

[Pardalis]

Talk about semantics. Either there was a firefighting operation (two hours by your account) or there was not.

Which is it?

Please read: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

starting at page 108 (162 in the PDF)

After more than a year at this, I can't believe you haven't read this yet... no, scrap what I just said, I absolutely can imagine it, you're a denier, you don't care to learn about the truth.

[Pardalis]

Since RedIbis started posting again, I'm bumping so that he can answer post 322, once and for all.

[RedIbis]

Since RedIbis started posting again, I'm bumping so that he can answer post 322, once and for all.

Pathetic. You continue to berate me for not continuing to respond to an enormous false analogy, one that purposefully misrepresents my position. I've deconstructed this in the past, and I have no interest in doing it again, especially to oblige someone with as obnoxious a posting style as yours.

[WildCat]

Pathetic. You continue to berate me for not continuing to respond to an enormous false analogy, one that purposefully misrepresents my position. I've deconstructed this in the past, and I have no interest in doing it again, especially to oblige someone with as obnoxious a posting style as yours.
Ah, there's the intellectually dishonest RedIbis we all know!

Accuse people of misrepresenting his opinion he refuses to state, and then lying about having answered it already.

[Pardalis]

"Ask questions, demand answers", that's all I'm doing Red.

[Grizzly Bear]

Pathetic. You continue to berate me for not continuing to respond to an enormous false analogy, one that purposefully misrepresents my position. I've deconstructed this in the past, and I have no interest in doing it again, especially to oblige someone with as obnoxious a posting style as yours.

The hypocrisy which you seem to be missing is in that you seem to have no problem with the Columbia incident being a first time in history event in which foam created the conditions for fatal re-entry into earth's atmosphere, on the basis that there have been concerns in the past in which -- despite not having previously caused such a disaster -- made the Columbia incident plausible.

Yet at the same time, you think that because a steel framed structure has never before failed because of either fire or thermal expansion -- despite all of the concerns set forth for these in the design process -- it must have been due to some externally induce phenomena.

I'm not entirely sure about the others who have asked you this in this thread, but if their thoughts are similar to mine, then they are arguing based on the principals you derived from in order to state your conclusion, not the literal comparison. I am fully aware I am wasting my breath on you trying to make you realize this, what else can I expect, but you applied a rational analysis to the Columbia tragedy, yet you turn that rational thought process right around in the opposite direction when you speak of WTC 7's case. I can't think of any other reason for you to do this other than some bias you hold for whatever reason, because intellectually you seem perfectly capable of making a proper analysis of factors, but intentionally fail to do so in this particular case.

[CORed]

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.

As is typically the case, this is exactly backwards. WTC7 is showered with debris, causing massive structural damage and very large fire, followed by collapse of WTC 7. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the default assumption is that the structural damage and fire caused the collapse. This is obvious to any non-paranoid, critically thinking person.

If you think the collapse was caused by, say, explosive demolition to further Larry Silversteins insurance scam, or destroy SEC documents, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to support this.

Despite Twoofer assertions to the contrary, there is nothing unbelievable about the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7. Knock the hell out of a building and set it on fire, and there's a very good chance it will collapse.

[Pardalis]

Bump for RedIbis.

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:


WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.



RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.


Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

A bump because of his remark in the other thread:

I don't doubt for a second that no plane nonsense is easy to refute. I'll wait until pt II is up so I can see how the scientific method is applied to a lack of core column samples experiencing temps above 250C in the towers or the WTC 7 collapse theory without column 79. In other words, how are hypotheses argued without the necessary physical evidence.

[jaydeehess]

I am looking for an analysis of the collapse of WTC 7. I know there was one somewhere that pins down the average accelleration of the north facade and the total time of collapse of the perimeter.
I can't find it again though,,, anyone??

[RedIbis]

I was on a roll in this thread.

[Pardalis]

You misspelled troll.

[jaydeehess]

I was on a roll in this thread.

Unfortunately you have yet to read the NIST report on WTC 7. At least you display no evidence of having done so.

[funk de fino]

You misspelled troll.

Too sharp

[RedIbis]

Unfortunately you have yet to read the NIST report on WTC 7. At least you display no evidence of having done so.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with NIST's report and its contention without any physical evidence that thermal expansion of the steel beams caused the unsupported Column 79 to buckle leading to the complete collapse of the building.

[boloboffin]

Actually, I'm quite familiar with NIST's report and its contention without any physical evidence that thermal expansion of the steel beams caused the unsupported Column 79 to buckle leading to the complete collapse of the building.

You need physical evidence of thermal expansion?

[RedIbis]

You need physical evidence of thermal expansion?

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.

[boloboffin]

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.

I'm not in the habit of requiring evidence for a phenomenon I experience every day. I don't call that skepticism. I call that know-nothingism.

Do you accept that thermal expansion happens?

[lapman]

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.
Yet you need no evidence whatsoever to believe it was a CD. :rolleyes:

[RedIbis]

Yet you need no evidence whatsoever to believe it was a CD. :rolleyes:

Of course I do. The difference is I'm not contending it was a CD. NIST is contending that a series of extraordinary circumstances brought down WTC 7, yet they've never presented any physical evidence.

[johnny karate]

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.

Being "skeptical" of the methods and conclusions of a forensic engineering report that has been accepted by the global community of forensic engineers is not skepticism, it's denialism.

[RedIbis]

Being "skeptical" of the methods and conclusions of a forensic engineering report that has been accepted by the global community of forensic engineers is not skepticism, it's denialism.

Please link me to the survey you reference that includes statements from this "global community of forensic engineers".

My guess is that nearly all of them have not actually read it and are probably smart enough not to comment on it until they do.

[johnny karate]

Please link me to the survey you reference that includes statements from this "global community of forensic engineers".

I've see you are now subscribing to Homeland Insurgency's ridiculous method of debate. Birds of a feather...

My guess is that nearly all of them have not actually read it and are probably smart enough not to comment on it until they do.

Yes, I'm sure that engineers in general pay very little attention to important events within their own industries. How fortunate for those nefarious evil-doers at NIST that an entire planet of experts have decided to ignore a report on one of the most significant structural failures in recent history.

There is, of course, any easy solution: Contact some forensic engineers, inform them of the existence of the NIST WTC7 Report (you may have to explain to them what NIST is, and possibly what the 9/11 attacks are, as they may not be aware of these things either), have them read it (you may have to help them with some of the more difficult parts), and ask them their opinion of its veracity.

Please let us know the results.

[RedIbis]

Please let us know the results.

Pure comedy. You make an absurd, unsupportable assertion and then expect me to provide the results. Debunking at its finest.

[Pardalis]

Since it lead to global collapse, of course. Any such extraordinary hypothesis would require physical evidence.

You might wonder why anyone who calls him/herself a skeptic doesn't require it.

And yet you accept the Columbia disaster without the crucial piece of physical evidence.

Why is that?

[RedIbis]

And yet you accept the Columbia disaster without the crucial piece of physical evidence.

Why is that?

You seem incapable of getting past this false analogy. Try another tactic.

[Pardalis]

You seem incapable of getting past this false analogy.

No, it is a valid analogy an you have failed to say why you think it isn't, and have kept evading it.

[RedIbis]

No, it is a valid analogy an you have failed to say why you think it isn't, and have kept evading it.

If you can't see the differences between a building and a space shuttle, I'm not going to walk you through it. It's time for me to pick up the new Flannery O'Connor biography, then it's back to work. Don't worry, I'll be back soon.

[Pardalis]

If you can't see the differences between a building and a space shuttle,

Obviously that's not the point of the analogy, the nature of the incident or of the structure at hand has nothing to do with it. It's about whether or not one can come to a comprehensive conclusion about what happened without the critical piece of physical evidence. You obviously can for the Columbia incident, but not WTC7. Again, why is that?

[johnny karate]

Pure comedy. You make an absurd, unsupportable assertion and then expect me to provide the results. Debunking at its finest.

The only absurd, unsupportable assertion I expect you substantiate is this one:
My guess is that nearly all of them have not actually read it and are probably smart enough not to comment on it until they do.

[jaydeehess]

Actually, I'm quite familiar with NIST's report and its contention without any physical evidence that thermal expansion of the steel beams caused the unsupported Column 79 to buckle leading to the complete collapse of the building.

Then why have you asked for an examination of column 79 for evidence of thermal expansion?

From post 68 (having been asked what he would expect to find on column 79 to refute or support the thermal expansion theoru put forth by NIST)
RI writes:
If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc.

How could you have read the report and take away from it that the heat stress on column 79 caused it to fail? Perhaps you actually read some time after you made that post?

[KreeL]

I suspect that in a coverup, the powers that be would claim a theory that points to a failure that cannot be verified because the actual evidence has been destroyed years ago.

"Thermal expansion on column 79". Yeah, makes sense to me.:p

Have they given lunch money to some students at Purdue to model it yet?

[ktesibios]

I suspect that in a coverup, the powers that be would claim a theory that points to a failure that cannot be verified because the actual evidence has been destroyed years ago.

"Thermal expansion on column 79". Yeah, makes sense to me.:p

Have they given lunch money to some students at Purdue to model it yet?

Thank you for proving conclusively that all you know about NIST's analysis are distorted second-or-third-hand claims from the paranoid conspiracy theory industry.

[RedIbis]

Then why have you asked for an examination of column 79 for evidence of thermal expansion?

From post 68 (having been asked what he would expect to find on column 79 to refute or support the thermal expansion theoru put forth by NIST)
RI writes:


How could you have read the report and take away from it that the heat stress on column 79 caused it to fail? Perhaps you actually read some time after you made that post?

Clearly, I was not as precise as I could have been. And since you clearly know the NIST report better than I, answer this question:

What physical evidence did NIST present that would substantiate its central claim that the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel floor beams, causing them to lose their connection to Column 79, causing this column to buckle leading to a chain reaction that results in the complete collapse of the building?

[BigAl]

Clearly, I was not as precise as I could have been. And since you clearly know the NIST report better than I, answer this question:

What physical evidence did NIST present that would substantiate its central claim that the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel floor beams, causing them to lose their connection to Column 79, causing this column to buckle leading to a chain reaction that results in the complete collapse of the building?

Why is physical evidence necessary to understand what caused WTC7 to collapse?

[RedIbis]

Why is physical evidence necessary to understand what caused WTC7 to collapse?

Yeah, you're probably right, evidence would just be stupid.

[1337m4n]

Why is physical evidence necessary to understand what caused WTC7 to collapse?

Yeah, you're probably right, evidence would just be stupid.

You are a really poor troll, Red.

[1337m4n]

Obviously that's not the point of the analogy, the nature of the incident or of the structure at hand has nothing to do with it. It's about whether or not one can come to a comprehensive conclusion about what happened without the critical piece of physical evidence. You obviously can for the Columbia incident, but not WTC7. Again, why is that?

Did you miss this post RedIbis?

Is it possible or not, to come to a sound conclusion without the critical piece of physical evidence?

[johnny karate]

What physical evidence did NIST present that would substantiate its central claim that the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel floor beams, causing them to lose their connection to Column 79, causing this column to buckle leading to a chain reaction that results in the complete collapse of the building?

NIST provided enough evidence to satisfy the global community of engineers. Reasonable people find this sufficient.

[johnny karate]

Yeah, you're probably right, evidence would just be stupid.

NIST actually provided evidence. It can be found here (http://wtc.nist.gov/). You just refuse to accept it. Luckily, you know nothing about engineering or scientific investigation, so your opinion on the matter is wholly irrelevant.

[Grizzly Bear]

Tell me I'm not reading a post that is asking for evidence that heat caused thermal expansion... please just tell me I'm not...

[Arus808]

....uh really?? ... you need evidence of thermal expansion. when tis dEMONSTRATED every single day there is a hot blazing sun over head?

Even Concrete expands in the heat. WHY do you think there are rubber sections inserted after each span of concrete in the road?

[ozeco41]

Tell me I'm not reading a post that is asking for evidence that heat caused thermal expansion... please just tell me I'm not...
Since every primary school kid knows that fact this is sub primary - kindergarten level - mental age less than 5 stuff.

What we need is a graded set of threads calibrated to "mental age".

I enjoy explaining things to kids of all ages - with language adjusted to their level of comprehension.

Needing to do the same for people with calendar ages in the double decade plus range BUT mental ages in the ranges of 3-5 OR 6-10 is quite a different challenge.

It would help if those persons would self classify into those who admit their mental age and those who deny it.

We could help those who admit. :D :)

The others need help in a different professional field.

[KreeL]

Thermal expansion is so well known and understood that , oh I would guess, 100% of skyscraper designers/engineers allow amply for it.

Does that sound about right?

[BigAl]

Thermal expansion is so well known and understood that , oh I would guess, 100% of skyscraper designers/engineers allow amply for it.

Does that sound about right?

Yup.

On the other hand, no architect would plan for a hours-long multi-floor fire with no water with which to fight it.

[johnny karate]

Yup.

On the other hand, no architect would plan for a hours-long multi-floor fire with no water with which to fight it.

And buildings don't collapse because it's a particularly hot day.

[jaydeehess]

Clearly, I was not as precise as I could have been. And since you clearly know the NIST report better than I, answer this question:

What physical evidence did NIST present that would substantiate its central claim that the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel floor beams, causing them to lose their connection to Column 79, causing this column to buckle leading to a chain reaction that results in the complete collapse of the building?


Wow, you claim that you were being imprecise and then do it again.

the beams did not lose connection with the column RI. The beams exerted pressure on the girder as they expanded thus pushing the girder off its seat on at the column. They could do this due to the fact that there was no beam(s) on the opposite side of the girder which, in a normally constructed structurte, constrained the movement.

NIST gave many examples of thermal expansion damage in other structures. they did not find any other structures with assymettric construction that had suffered heavy fire damage. That would be due to the small number of both office fires, and structures with assymettric construction.

Since the theory involved beams and girders, which were largely unmarked or marked with dye that will not survive a fire, it is impossible to determine which ones came from where. In addition there were fires in the rubble pile and thus even if one did find them one could not determine what damage occured pre- or post- collapse.

Given the research that NIST did to bolster the parameters they used in the sims, it is quite acceptable then to assume that the sim comes very close to what actually happened. Get into the 21st century RI, computer sim is used for more than video games now.

[lapman]

Wow, you claim that you were being imprecise and then do it again.

the beams did not lose connection with the column RI. The beams exerted pressure on the girder as they expanded thus pushing the girder off its seat on at the column. They could do this due to the fact that there was no beam(s) on the opposite side of the girder which, in a normally constructed structurte, constrained the movement.

NIST gave many examples of thermal expansion damage in other structures. they did not find any other structures with assymettric construction that had suffered heavy fire damage. That would be due to the small number of both office fires, and structures with assymettric construction.

Since the theory involved beams and girders, which were largely unmarked or marked with dye that will not survive a fire, it is impossible to determine which ones came from where. In addition there were fires in the rubble pile and thus even if one did find them one could not determine what damage occured pre- or post- collapse.

Given the research that NIST did to bolster the parameters they used in the sims, it is quite acceptable then to assume that the sim comes very close to what actually happened. Get into the 21st century RI, computer sim is used for more than video games now.
And that's what RI chooses to ignore. He wants desperately to believe that column 79 would have had a huge sign on it stating "Failure occured here" for NIST to find. You are correct in stating that they would not have been able to identify from the rubble column 79, the affects of pre- and post-collapse fire damage any more than they could at the disposal site. However, Red does have his straw to grasp onto with all his might.

[RedIbis]

Wow, you claim that you were being imprecise and then do it again.

the beams did not lose connection with the column RI. The beams exerted pressure on the girder as they expanded thus pushing the girder off its seat on at the column. They could do this due to the fact that there was no beam(s) on the opposite side of the girder which, in a normally constructed structurte, constrained the movement.

NIST gave many examples of thermal expansion damage in other structures. they did not find any other structures with assymettric construction that had suffered heavy fire damage. That would be due to the small number of both office fires, and structures with assymettric construction.

Since the theory involved beams and girders, which were largely unmarked or marked with dye that will not survive a fire, it is impossible to determine which ones came from where. In addition there were fires in the rubble pile and thus even if one did find them one could not determine what damage occured pre- or post- collapse.

Given the research that NIST did to bolster the parameters they used in the sims, it is quite acceptable then to assume that the sim comes very close to what actually happened. Get into the 21st century RI, computer sim is used for more than video games now.

So no, they don't have any physical evidence for this extraordinary chain of events. At least you were honest.

[lapman]

So no, they don't have any physical evidence for this extraordinary chain of events. At least you were honest.
Wow would the be able to dermine what damage was done pre- or post-collapse? How would they be able to determine which was column 79 without any markings?

[DavidJames]

Wow, you claim that you were being imprecise and then do it again.

the beams did not lose connection with the column RI. The beams exerted pressure on the girder as they expanded thus pushing the girder off its seat on at the column. They could do this due to the fact that there was no beam(s) on the opposite side of the girder which, in a normally constructed structurte, constrained the movement.

NIST gave many examples of thermal expansion damage in other structures. they did not find any other structures with assymettric construction that had suffered heavy fire damage. That would be due to the small number of both office fires, and structures with assymettric construction.

Since the theory involved beams and girders, which were largely unmarked or marked with dye that will not survive a fire, it is impossible to determine which ones came from where. In addition there were fires in the rubble pile and thus even if one did find them one could not determine what damage occured pre- or post- collapse.

Given the research that NIST did to bolster the parameters they used in the sims, it is quite acceptable then to assume that the sim comes very close to what actually happened. Get into the 21st century RI, computer sim is used for more than video games now.
If objections, like Red's, were coming form competent engineering professionals, I might be interested.

Frankly I don't care about opinions on technical subjects from people who have no technical education or experience or even the ability to argue the points in a technical manner.

A grown adult who responds, effectively, by sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I'm not listening, I don't believe you". Means nothing. Quite frankly, I can't imagine an emotionally and intellectually mature person even displaying such behavior. Other then vocabulary, there is no distinction between Red, ULTIMA1, HI, Galileo, the pdoh socks and others.

[johnny karate]

If objections, like Red's, were coming form competent engineering professionals, I might be interested.

Seems like a nice idea in theory. The only problem is that most engineers don't read engineering reports*, so you'd be hard-pressed to actually find a competent engineering professional who's read the WTC7 report, let alone be able to comment on it.

* Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4669789#post4669789).

[jaydeehess]

So no, they don't have any physical evidence for this extraordinary chain of events. At least you were honest.

So tell me , what do you make of the fact that there was no evidence to be had. It was nigh on impossible to identify the beams or girder in the rubble and even if it were then it would be nigh on impossible to determine what heat damage occured pre- or post-collapse. (What's 'nigh on impossible' squared?:D)

How do you characterize the research into thermal expansion caused damage in other structures if not physical evidence?
How do you characterize the fact that the building was constructed assymettrically?
How do you reconcile your requirement for 'physical evidence', with the fact that computer sims are used to design aircraft such as the A380 and get it right the first time? After all, they are just using accepted science, technology, and research garnered over the past 60 years or so.

[RedIbis]

The only problem is that most engineers don't read engineering reports*.


It's funny to me that that's what you got out of what I said.

[johnny karate]

It's funny to me that that's what you got out of what I said.


This is what you said:
My guess is that nearly all of them have not actually read it and are probably smart enough not to comment on it until they do.


Feel free to provide an alternate interpretation to mine.

[Pardalis]

Obviously that's not the point of the analogy, the nature of the incident or of the structure at hand has nothing to do with it. It's about whether or not one can come to a comprehensive conclusion about what happened without the critical piece of physical evidence. You obviously can for the Columbia incident, but not WTC7. Again, why is that?

Did you miss this post RedIbis?

Is it possible or not, to come to a sound conclusion without the critical piece of physical evidence?


Red?