Merged: Summing up the evidence against Controlled Demolition

[Sizzler]

Originally Posted by rm86

TAM, I don’t generally submit to loyalty oaths, but okay, just this once.

As for what I believe, for starters, I believe that neither you nor I know what happened on 9/11, in no small part because we weren't there and didn't participate in the crimes (I trust).

You say you want to know what my beliefs are, but let’s be honest. What you really want to know are my biases. I’ll save you the trouble of asking, because from where I stand the two are the same. (Whoops, there goes one.) Anyway, you asked, so I'll tell you. But before I go any further, I think you should also tell me what sort of biases govern your views, or those of your friends on this board.

In particular, I’d be interested in knowing whether, by claiming the mantle of scientist, you and/or your fellow posters believe you’ve managed to sidestep the corrupting influences of biases, emotions, and finite mental capacity that afflict the rest of us, regardless of one’s station in life.

The arrogance displayed in these pages is plentiful, and often gleeful, but I don't think it advances anyone's case. My experience in the reality-based world tells me that arrogance and credibility are usually inversely proportional; if you can’t be trusted to admit that you're as human and fallible as the rest of us, then why, regardless of all the intellectual bludgeoning you dish out, should the rest of us believe anything you have to say (not you personally, since I confess I haven’t seen a lot of your stuff yet)? That said, a lot of folks here don't seem interested in much more than intellectual [sic] masturbation, group style, nor in their ability to persuade anybody outside of the clique.

Here are a couple more of my biases/beliefs: in the reality-based world, it’s power that determines what we call truth, and science is no less malleable than statistics when someone has an agenda to declare the truth, and the power to enforce it. Those of you in the science academies who aren’t liars, naifs, or fools must admit to at least a passing familiarity with theory wars, tenure battles, and publishing intrigues that had little to do with the scientific merit of another’s work, and everything to do with professional- or institutional- or interpersonal-politics, or the threats that paradigm-shifters pose to the old guard, or gender, or age, etc. Scientists are no less worried about their statuses, careers, incomes, and reputations as anyone else, and it’s simply a myth to suppose that they’d be unwilling to chuck the pursuit of some greater cosmic truth were any of the former interests seriously threatened, and fight as dirty and dishonestly as anyone. When that happens, the minority-view science usually gets trashed, and the majority, old-guard science lives to see another day.

And while we’re at it, let’s please not forget all of the accepted science that not so long ago was marshaled in support of such obscenities as superiority based on race, ethnicity, or gender; nuclear war; frontal lobotomies; forced sterilizations and other experimentation on unwitting or involuntary human subjects; non-carcinogenic tobacco; and the introduction of countless toxins into the environment for the benefit of industry, etc. What proof do you have that the impulses that drove the scientifically-minded consensus of other eras to pursue such ignoble ends has somehow vanished from ours? And if you agree that these impulses are still present among the contemporary consensus, then tell me, how, and in what way? Who are the latter day victims of ostensibly “reputable” science in service of power for the few, against the interests of the less powerful, and often, the many less powerful?

Here’s another bias/belief: I think that in our country, whenever there’s an attack on one of our “vital national interests” that needs to be explained, our government and other powerful institutions have always reserved for themselves the presumption of truth, and the right to define the status quo—which means that anyone who disagrees is required to rebut that presumption, like a prosecutor who has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You must admit, that’s a pretty steep hill to climb for those of us who are neither government-issued nor institution-approved.

Now, for 9/11. To date, what the US has told us is that it has provided an accurate accounting of the destruction of the WTC buildings that is consistent with physics, structural engineering, fire science, metallurgy, you name it. To which I say, they missed a step, because when the government or other powerful institutions go about the task of altering the status quo—and what was the status quo in the immediate aftermath of the planes hitting the towers, if not a vacuum of knowledge regarding causation?—they, not we, have the burden of proof, and to meet that burden, they cannot assert theories which substitute plausibility for demonstrability.

Here's what I mean: I have yet to see a plausible, let alone convincing case to explain how two steel highrises could be made to mostly dissolve due to plane impact and fire, or in the case of WTC7, due to impact by falling debris and a fire. Nor have I seen one that would explain how three buildings, on the same day, in the confines of several New York City blocks, could be reduced to mostly steel beams and dust despite their being subjected to assaults that were significantly different from each other, and in the case of WTC7, vastly so.

On the other hand, what I have seen with my own eyes is, for example, that when WTC1 started its final descent, the upper floors did not fall as a block, as many of the posters here contend, but rather began listing heavily, and dissolving, before passing through the plane impact zone. Nor could the upper block have fallen symmetrically, unless one accepts the plainly implausible notion that virtually every single central core and perimeter column failed simultaneously. And yet, this supposed block was somehow the sledgehammer that caused that building to telescope into itself.

As I see it, the consensus, majority view of most of the scientists on this forum proceeds from the hypothesis that the buildings were probably brought down by plane impact, debris impact, and fire. If that’s your hypothesis, then it necessarily follows that you’re going to place a high value on evidence and theories which support your hypothesis, and comparatively less value on evidence and theories that suggest your initial hypothesis was wrong. More to the point, there are multiple biases underlying such a hypothesis—chiefly, that the mechanism of the building’s destruction is more relevant than the improbability of any number of anomalous events occurring that day (incompetent pilots flying commercial jets with dead-on accuracy and no military intercepts; virtually straight down collapses in free fall time despite asymmetric and non-global defects in the tower support columns; the utter pulverization of virtually all the concrete and office furnishings; molten non-aluminic metal flowing out of one of the towers pre-collapse as a result of hydrocarbon-fueled fire at normal atmospheric pressures, et al.).

If, by comparison, one of your biases is that the anomalies are too numerous, and that governments (not just ours, but all governments) usually lie, you probably start with a different hypothesis, namely, that plane impact, debris impact, and fire did not cause the destruction of the three WTC buildings, and that something else was afoot.

Are you on to me yet? Well hold up, because here’s just a few more: I don’t think that conventional CD can explain the buildings’ collapses, nor high energy weapons for that matter. Nor do I think that objects other than planes were flown into the towers. I also don’t believe the USG was behind it. I don’t know who was behind it. The point is, and here’s my last one for now, if you mostly agree with the main conclusions of NIST or the 9/11 Commission, you don’t know, either.

Cheers.

Welcome to the forum. Great post.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by rm86

More to the point, there are multiple biases underlying such a hypothesis—chiefly, that the mechanism of the building’s destruction is more relevant than the improbability of any number of anomalous events occurring that day (incompetent pilots flying commercial jets with dead-on accuracy and no military intercepts; virtually straight down collapses in free fall time despite asymmetric and non-global defects in the tower support columns; the utter pulverization of virtually all the concrete and office furnishings; molten non-aluminic metal flowing out of one of the towers pre-collapse as a result of hydrocarbon-fueled fire at normal atmospheric pressures, et al.).

While I recognise that this is only one sentence from a long and complex post, it concerns me somewhat. Your aim in framing this sentence, presumably, is to demonstrate that there is evidence against the generally accepted narrative of 9-11 that must be rejected by those who accept it, and that our rejection of evidence is indicative of our bias. In doing so, you have presumably chosen what you feel is a good set of examples. Why, then, have you chosen a set of examples which are demonstrably false? The "incompetent pilots" were all licensed by the FAA as competent, and their accuracy was no more than adequate. The collapses were clearly not straight-down, hence the need for your meaningless qualifier "virtually", and the assertion of free-fall time is utterly baseless and contradicted by all the evidence. The concrete was not utterly pulverised, as witness the known existence of large blocks of debris. The molten metal has a number of possible explanations, none of which are consistent with any of the theories advanced by the truth movement to explain it. And these are the examples you presumably chose as your strongest.

The problem with this anomaly-based analysis is that it is itself an indicator of bias. In effect, the anomaly hunter starts from the presumption that an event is not understood. He then seeks out aspects of the event that he himself does not understand, then presents them as anomalies; however, due to his own lack of understanding he is generally unable to formulate a hypothesis which gives a superior explanation. When faced with explanations from people who do understand these aspects of the event, which are consistent with the understanding he himself has rejected, then he either refuses to accept these explanations (a common approach on this newsgroup), or retreats to an assertion that the number of proposed anomalies is itself an anomaly due to its improbability. However, it is no such thing; it is simply a measure of the lack of understanding on the part of the anomaly hunter.

I have seen this behaviour time after time from the truth movement. That alone would in no sense be disproof of their theories; indeed, focusing on the non sequiturs of the anomaly hunters would again be a form of bias, if it were coupled with avoidance of the more rigorous arguments put forward by the movement. However, I have yet to see any such arguments. All I have found is people like you, listing a series of minor phenomena that either they do not understand or that are largely fictitious, and claiming that these cast doubt on the "offical story". An effect, you are using the existence of your own arguments as support for your arguments, and eventually it becomes their sole support.

I may be wrong; you may be aware of significant aspects of the events of 9-11 that are correctly stated and that I cannot easily understand as consistent with the accepted narrative. However, I have yet to see any, from you or from anyone else who doubts the accepted narrative. Therefore, while you are perhaps just asking questions rather than making accusations, at some point it might be worth considering that there are perfectly simple answers that you either refuse to believe or just don't understand.

Dave

[Pardalis]

rm86, I would appreciate if you could answer my questions, you seem to have answered the only emotional response so far and chose to ignore the others.

Something in your post caught my attention:

Originally Posted by rm86

As I see it, the consensus, majority view of most of the scientists on this forum proceeds from the hypothesis that the buildings were probably brought down by plane impact, debris impact, and fire. If that’s your hypothesis, then it necessarily follows that you’re going to place a high value on evidence and theories which support your hypothesis, and comparatively less value on evidence and theories that suggest your initial hypothesis was wrong.

snip

I don’t think that conventional CD can explain the buildings’ collapses, nor high energy weapons for that matter. Nor do I think that objects other than planes were flown into the towers

Since you acknowledge yourself that "controlled demolition" doesn't explain the collapses, and that planes did fly into them, isn't it a reasonable place to start the investigation to think that maybe the damage the planes did to the buildings cause them to fail and ultimately collapse?

You call it a "bias", but isn't it a reasonable one? Most people would call it a dead give-away as to what cause the buildings to fall, well... that and gravity.

And since you seem to discount the CD theory, then why are you continuing to consider it? Most people have discounted the trans-dimensional Leprechaun theory as well, so what use would there be for the NIST to continue to consider these two theories, just for the sake of not having any "biases"?

Isn't science a way to get to the truth the simplest way possible? CD theories and Leprechauns are simply a waste of time and energy.

[PhantomWolf]

Quote:

incompetent pilots flying commercial jets with dead-on accuracy

You realise of course that those three "incompetent pilots" all held valid US commercial pilot's licences? I guess you better not fly or walk/drive/ride under a flight path is the US FAA is handing out licences to such incompetents. I'd also note that it's been shown many times that even people with zero flight experience can aim a plane at a target as big as a building and hit it.

Quote:

no military intercepts

You of course know that from the time they were informed about each hijacking until the time that plane crashed that NORAD had a total of 9 mins to intercept Flight 11, 0 mins to intercept Flight 175, 2 mins to intercept Flight 77 and -4 mins to intercept Flight 93?

Quote:

virtually straight down collapses

Execpt for the parts that fell sideways outward at least 600m. BTW, since gravity is acting downwards, shouldn't that be the direction things fell?

Quote:

in free fall time

Except that freefall time was 10 secs for WTC 1 and 8 sec for WTC 2 whereas the collapses were 18-20 secs and 16-18 secs respectively, about twice the time of freefall.

Quote:

the utter pulverization of virtually all the concrete and office furnishings

Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.)

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-ìmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-ìm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-ìmdiam) particles that are typically measured.”

Dr Steven Jones.

I guess the bit about all the concrete being pulverised is wrong too. BTW lots of furniture and other objects (including filing cabinets) were found. Most generally weren't recognisable at first glance due to the dame, but they weren't ground into dust.

Quote:

molten non-aluminic metal flowing out of one of the towers pre-collapse

Since no metalurgy was done on this metal how can you be so sure that it was not Aluminium or aluminium mixed with other metals or material?

Quote:

as a result of hydrocarbon-fueled fire at normal atmospheric pressures

Who claimed that it was melted by hydrocarbon-fueled fires? The Jet fuel would have long since burned off and the office contents, as well as the plane itself would have been the fuel for a long time prior to the metal flowing. The plane contained around 80 oxygen generators which could burn at temperatures over 2,000°C for a start. Ordinary office fires can get up to 1,000°C by themselves.

It would seem that your biases stem from not actually knowing the real story but rather the story that the CT side claims in the Govt's story.

[roundhead]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

rm86, I would appreciate if you could answer my questions, you seem to have answered the only emotional response so far and chose to ignore the others.

Something in your post caught my attention:



Since you acknowledge yourself that "controlled demolition" doesn't explain the collapses, and that planes did fly into them, isn't it a reasonable place to start the investigation to think that maybe the damage the planes did to the buildings cause them to fail and ultimately collapse?

You call it a "bias", but isn't it a reasonable one? Most people would call it a dead give-away as to what cause the buildings to fall, well... that and gravity.

And since you seem to discount the CD theory, then why are you continuing to consider it? Most people have discounted the trans-dimensional Leprechaun theory as well, so what use would there be for the NIST to continue to consider these two theories, just for the sake of not having any "biases"?

Isn't science a way to get to the truth the simplest way possible? CD theories and Leprechauns are simply a waste of time and energy.

I regard carrying conventional demolitions into the buildings as pretty unlikely, and in buildings this size, even were it done, the outcome would definately be, by the nature of the size of the buildings, somewhat unpredictable.

Even more unlikely is that the buildings could pretty much instantly be turned into talcum powder by a gravity driven collapse. Way more hunks of concrete and a much more sizable rubble pile would be the expected result if that were the case. There are examples of gravity collapses that bear zero resemblance to these rubble piles.

As Neither of the above two scenarios fit the look and aftermath of the event, another source is obviously the culprit. What it is exactly i am still trying to figure out.

There are clues, itS just finding a culprit that fits what was seen, heard,left over from the event, accounts for the basicy disappearance of most all of the contents, and concrete of the buildings.

I have an idea, i am just trying to see if it fits into all observed data.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by roundhead

Even more unlikely is that the buildings could pretty much instantly be turned into talcum powder by a gravity driven collapse. Way more hunks of concrete and a much more sizable rubble pile would be the expected result if that were the case. There are examples of gravity collapses that bear zero resemblance to these rubble piles.

Compared with the overall mass of the building there was very little concrete to be had. The reason why many collapses bear no resemblance to the WTC collapses is in large because many neither had the same acre-sized footprint, nor the same 4-inch slab thickness. The main structural components of the towers was steel and none was 'pulverized', they spent months cleaning up the mess.

Originally Posted by roundhead

As Neither of the above two scenarios fit the look and aftermath of the event, another source is obviously the culprit. What it is exactly i am still trying to figure out.

[/quote]
You have to compare apples with apples to get anything remotely resembling the end result.

Much smaller buildings with thicker concrete floors slabs fpr example could appear very similar to this.

But buildings the size of the trade center and of the same construction are extremely rare, the concrete floor slabs were extremely thin (like paper given the ratio of thickness to overall footprint size). AKA the results will be much different

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by roundhead

Even more unlikely is that the buildings could pretty much instantly be turned into talcum powder by a gravity driven collapse.

Just as well that didn't happen then isn't it.

Quote:

I have an idea, i am just trying to see if it fits into all observed data.

Get back to us when you actually want to look at the real data and not the lies as told to you by the CT sites.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by roundhead

I have an idea, i am just trying to see if it fits into all observed data.

An unusual approach for a conspiracy theorist, wouldn't you rather just make something up (like, for example, "buildings [...] turned into talcum powder"), and just pretend it fits that? After all, when anybody points out the real data to you, you just call them a liar.

Did you come up with anything I was lying about, by the way?

Dave

[Pardalis]

Bump for rm86

Originally Posted by Pardalis

rm86, I would appreciate if you could answer my questions, you seem to have answered the only emotional response so far and chose to ignore the others.

Something in your post caught my attention:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rm86
As I see it, the consensus, majority view of most of the scientists on this forum proceeds from the hypothesis that the buildings were probably brought down by plane impact, debris impact, and fire. If that’s your hypothesis, then it necessarily follows that you’re going to place a high value on evidence and theories which support your hypothesis, and comparatively less value on evidence and theories that suggest your initial hypothesis was wrong.

snip

I don’t think that conventional CD can explain the buildings’ collapses, nor high energy weapons for that matter. Nor do I think that objects other than planes were flown into the towers

Since you acknowledge yourself that "controlled demolition" doesn't explain the collapses, and that planes did fly into them, isn't it a reasonable place to start the investigation to think that maybe the damage the planes did to the buildings cause them to fail and ultimately collapse?

You call it a "bias", but isn't it a reasonable one? Most people would call it a dead give-away as to what cause the buildings to fall, well... that and gravity.

And since you seem to discount the CD theory, then why are you continuing to consider it? Most people have discounted the trans-dimensional Leprechaun theory as well, so what use would there be for the NIST to continue to consider these two theories, just for the sake of not having any "biases"?

Isn't science a way to get to the truth the simplest way possible? CD theories and Leprechauns are simply a waste of time and energy.

[OneShotKi11]

So the cause was due to.....FIRE???

WTF

I thought we had gotten way passed this issue, but seems the truthers were right and it was the first building in the world to collapse due to fire.

I need clarifications from you guys for telling me it was caused by structural damage to core columns from falling debris slamming into the building!

After all this Truther Fire/CD debunking nonsense we are back at FIRE.

What went wrong please explain!!!

http://news.aol.com/article/feds-say...835x1200442047

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by OneShotKi11

I thought we had gotten way passed this issue, but seems the truthers were right and it was the first building in the world to collapse due to fire.

Unfought fires.

[e^n]

Originally Posted by OneShotKi11

I need clarifications from you guys for telling me it was caused by structural damage to core columns from falling debris slamming into the building!

After all this Truther Fire/CD debunking nonsense we are back at FIRE.

What went wrong please explain!!!

It appears we were wrong. There were many contributing causes to the collapse but it was essentially down to fire.

It's worth noting that isolated, the building would not have collapsed as there would be water for fire sprinkler systems, and water and personell available to fight the fire.

Regardless yes, it would appear the primary cause of failure is differential thermal expansion resulting in the failure of composite elements, eventually resulting in their failure and as a result, the failure of a major internal column. Due to the relatively unique design of WTC7, these failures allowed a progressive collapse to destroy the building.

I hope that is a good enough synopsis.

[T.A.M.]

I was not involved in the investigation, or the modeling, so my opinion has always been based on the opinions of other REAL EXPERTS, and what they had concluded. It made logical sense to me that the damage to the building from debris would have contributed to collapse.

I however, unlike the NIST SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, am not an expert. I was not privvy to even a fraction of what they were.

and yes, as others have mentioned, it seems we were wrong. It was not damage plus fires, but rather prolonged unfought fires plus elements within the design.

TAM

[Alferd_Packer]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Unfought fires.

I think that the structural damage was sufficient to allow the fires to spread and burn longer than normal.

But, then again, I'm not the expert.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by OneShotKi11

So the cause was due to.....FIRE???

WTF

I thought we had gotten way passed this issue, but seems the truthers were right and it was the first building in the world to collapse due to fire.

I need clarifications from you guys for telling me it was caused by structural damage to core columns from falling debris slamming into the building!

After all this Truther Fire/CD debunking nonsense we are back at FIRE.

What went wrong please explain!!!

http://news.aol.com/article/feds-say...835x1200442047

Lame attempt at flame bait.

Unlike truthers, I can admit I was in error about WTC7. I believed that the southwest corner damage from debris impact was key to the collapse and I stand corrected. How many truthers will drop their highly improbable CD theories now that NIST reports that a CD is not plausible?

Thought so.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by e^n

It appears we were wrong. There were many contributing causes to the collapse but it was essentially down to fire.

It's worth noting that isolated, the building would not have collapsed as there would be water for fire sprinkler systems, and water and personell available to fight the fire.

Regardless yes, it would appear the primary cause of failure is differential thermal expansion resulting in the failure of composite elements, eventually resulting in their failure and as a result, the failure of a major internal column. Due to the relatively unique design of WTC7, these failures allowed a progressive collapse to destroy the building.

I hope that is a good enough synopsis.

(my bold)
I don't totally agree with the bolded part (I think).

My point is that a building that has fires start on multiple floor can overwhelm a sprinkler system / supplies for hose streams etc., even if the system is designed to code.

Perhaps I should start a new thread and invite leftysergeant, Hamradioguy, Sparky, njslim and a few others familiar with firefighting and fire protection engineering to participate.

[PhantomWolf]

I think that even the engineers at NIST were surprised when their results indicated that the damage to the building wasn't suffecient to have contributed to the collapse, so to point the finger and laugh that Laymen got it wrong. The real challenge now is to see who will study the data and who will ignore it.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by OneShotKi11

I need clarifications from you guys for telling me it was caused by structural damage to core columns from falling debris slamming into the building!

After all this Truther Fire/CD debunking nonsense we are back at FIRE.

What went wrong please explain!!!

For what it's worth, some of us have been of the opinion that it was fire rather than structural impact damage for some time.

Having said that, there is a lot of new material from NIST, and it may be that there remains a lot of uncertainty about the significance of impact damage. Or we may even disagree with NIST. I've just started reading it myself, and it will take at least until next week for me to get through it all.

In the meantime, I encourage you to read the reports yourself.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I was not involved in the investigation, or the modeling, so my opinion has always been based on the opinions of other REAL EXPERTS, and what they had concluded. It made logical sense to me that the damage to the building from debris would have contributed to collapse.

I however, unlike the NIST SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, am not an expert. I was not privvy to even a fraction of what they were.

and yes, as others have mentioned, it seems we were wrong. It was not damage plus fires, but rather prolonged unfought fires plus elements within the design.

TAM

Admitting you are wrong is not good form in the NWO.

Your Email will tell you of your Reducation Session.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Lame attempt at flame bait.

Unlike truthers, I can admit I was in error about WTC7. I believed that the southwest corner damage from debris impact was key to the collapse and I stand corrected. How many truthers will drop their highly improbable CD theories now that NIST reports that a CD is not plausible?

Thought so.

The camps will be full.

If you admit even one small error you are WRONG forever.

(you may also learn something but learning is painful and requires effort)

[tsig]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

For what it's worth, some of us have been of the opinion that it was fire rather than structural impact damage for some time.

Having said that, there is a lot of new material from NIST, and it may be that there remains a lot of uncertainty about the significance of impact damage. Or we may even disagree with NIST. I've just started reading it myself, and it will take at least until next week for me to get through it all.

In the meantime, I encourage you to read the reports yourself.

You clearly do not have the reading speed of a twoofer many of whom have not only read it but have written "analysis" of it.

[A W Smith]

OP reported for merge with existing building seven thread or AAH

[fezzic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

(my bold)
I don't totally agree with the bolded part (I think).

My point is that a building that has fires start on multiple floor can overwhelm a sprinkler system / supplies for hose streams etc., even if the system is designed to code.

Perhaps I should start a new thread and invite leftysergeant, Hamradioguy, Sparky, njslim and a few others familiar with firefighting and fire protection engineering to participate.

Since the fires apparently started as a result of falling debris from 1 WTC, that would mean (to me) that they started as very localized fires which spread. Even an overloaded sprinkler system might have delivered sufficient water to limit the size or spread of the fires or slow the progression of the fire.

Presumably, a functioning sprinkler might have bought enough time for fire fighters to arrive and extinguish the fires.

I seem to recall that the sprinkler system above floor 20? had its own water supply and that was sufficient? to control fires on higher floors??

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by fezzic

Since the fires apparently started as a result of falling debris from 1 WTC, that would mean (to me) that they started as very localized fires which spread. Even an overloaded sprinkler system might have delivered sufficient water to limit the size or spread of the fires or slow the progression of the fire.

Presumably, a functioning sprinkler might have bought enough time for fire fighters to arrive and extinguish the fires.

I seem to recall that the sprinkler system above floor 20? had its own water supply and that was sufficient? to control fires on higher floors??

Some of the fire floors did have a sprinkler system independent of the main city water line, which kept some of the fires in check. There were several floors however whose primary and backup water sources were ruptured when the twin towers collapsed. The same damage also impeded fire figting efforts.

Additionally while the structural damage wasn't the primarily caus of the collapse, it had secondary effects that made the structure more vulnerable to failure.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Some of the fire floors did have a sprinkler system independent of the main city water line, which kept some of the fires in check. There were several floors however whose primary and backup water sources were ruptured when the twin towers collapsed. The same damage also impeded fire figting efforts.

Additionally while the structural damage wasn't the primarily caus of the collapse, it had secondary effects that made the structure more vulnerable to failure.

One of my buildings has a 5000 gallon backup tank on the roof that in theory will supply 28 floors with sprinkler water in case of city water failure, which is a very real possibility; The building is located San Francisco.

At 125 psi, this sprinkler system can saturate a floor very quickly, which is why I believe that the fires in WTC7 were not as severe on the upper floors. Their backup system did do its job where it wasn't damaged.

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

Funny part is I just know all twoofers will disregard this.

HOW CAN A FIRE COLLAPSE BUILDING?!?!??!ONE1!!!LOL111

Of course they will do bassically nothing to try to disprove it. Then when we point them to NIST they will say "in on it." When we point out how many people would be required to be in on it they'll say "We'll only a handful of people need to know though they could have mislead them (or something to this effect)"

Course they will never scientifically disprove it.

[Oliver]

Opening Statement Press Briefing, August 21, 2008, Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...wtc082108.html

[mrbaracuda]

Yea, right, the first building in the world to collapse due to fire.
For that sentence alone you'll get a facepalm.

Originally Posted by OneShotKi11

it was the first building in the world to collapse due to fire

Quote:

After all this Truther Fire/CD debunking nonsense we are back at FIRE.

What went wrong please explain!!!

Speculation met science. You might want to try it at some point.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

Perhaps I should start a new thread and invite leftysergeant, Hamradioguy, Sparky, njslim and a few others familiar with firefighting and fire protection engineering to participate.

I wouldn't mind, so let me know please.

[Ragnarok]

The evidence was that convincing that a CD didn't occur - notice I didn't say Controlled Explosion - that NIST didn't even bother to look for means in which it could be done, instead relying on a recently invented concept named "Thermal Expansion" to explain the events of WTC7. Anyone who thinks that the representative for NIST managed a competent rebuttal to the questions in the recent press conference, is living in denial.

[MarkyX]

Quote:

Instead Relying On A Recently Invented Concept Named "thermal Expansion" To Explain The Events Of Wtc7.

Hahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaha ahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahah ahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahaha hahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaa hahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaa ha

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by MarkyX

Hahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaha ahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahah ahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahaha hahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaa hahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaa ha

Are you going to tell me what you find so funny, or did you miss the bit where he said they only came up with the idea a year ago?

[MarkyX]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Are you going to tell me what you find so funny, or did you miss the bit where he said they only came up with the idea a year ago?

So NIST invented Thermal Expansion now....

LOL

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by MarkyX

So NIST invented Thermal Expansion now....

LOL

That's what the speaker in the NIST press conference said, and they are supposed to be the people in the know. Are you completely satisfied with his responses from the 35 minute mark in this video link?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

The evidence was that convincing that a CD didn't occur - notice I didn't say Controlled Explosion - that NIST didn't even bother to look for means in which it could be done, instead relying on a recently invented concept named "Thermal Expansion" to explain the events of WTC7. Anyone who thinks that the representative for NIST managed a competent rebuttal to the questions in the recent press conference, is living in denial.

(emphasis added)


Since Herr Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer in 1714 which of course operates entirely on the concept of thermal expansion, I'd say calling thermal expansion "a recently invented concept" is, hmm, what's the word I'm looking for...

Oh, yeah. "Wrong." That's the one.

Here are a few other not-so-recent inventions that are either necessitated by, or make use of (or both), thermal expansion:

Temperature-compensated clock pendulum: 1721 (liquid), 1726 (solid)

Expansion gaps in railroad tracks: at least since the first use of steel rails in 1857

The bi-metallic electric thermostat: 1885 (probably pre-dated by non-electric bi-metallic furnace dampers)

Hot rivet construction: for buildings, 1887 (the Eiffel Tower), but use in shipbuilding might have pre-dated that

So, for instance, Benjamin Franklin would have been completely aware of this "recently invented concept" of thermal expansion, and took it into account in the design of the Franklin stove circa 1742. (Previous iron stove designs developed cracks in the iron panels due to stresses caused by thermal expansion.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[roundhead]

Originally Posted by Myriad

(emphasis added)


Since Herr Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer in 1714 which of course operates entirely on the concept of thermal expansion, I'd say calling thermal expansion "a recently invented concept" is, hmm, what's the word I'm looking for...

Oh, yeah. "Wrong." That's the one.

Here are a few other not-so-recent inventions that are either necessitated by, or make use of (or both), thermal expansion:

Temperature-compensated clock pendulum: 1721 (liquid), 1726 (solid)

Expansion gaps in railroad tracks: at least since the first use of steel rails in 1857

The bi-metallic electric thermostat: 1885 (probably pre-dated by non-electric bi-metallic furnace dampers)

Hot rivet construction: for buildings, 1887 (the Eiffel Tower), but use in shipbuilding might have pre-dated that

So, for instance, Benjamin Franklin would have been completely aware of this "recently invented concept" of thermal expansion, and took it into account in the design of the Franklin stove circa 1742. (Previous iron stove designs developed cracks in the iron panels due to stresses caused by thermal expansion.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks, Myriad



Now kindly point out how your above history lesson has anything to do with WTC 7 being the first building in history to fall victim to this scourge, and Nist didnt even look at these"oddities" physically, yet came to the illogical conclusion they did, in spite of other options that could more logically account for the collapse.

I think the word i am looking for is "anti-science"



Unlike most "truthers" i respect NIST a lot. The task they were given, make the official lie not stink to high heaven, is a challenging task.

In the end, even an Anaconda can only open its jaws so far to swallow prey. Nist was given prey above and beyond its capability to explain.

Sadly, have they been given a clean slate and told merely find the truth, the job would have been doable

[OneShotKi11]

This is not the point people!!!

The point is that you guys (The JRef community) swear by these investigations put forth by our government. Anything they say you stand by and bash others with their lac of knowledge on the subjects.
You tell them for the most part to do some "Critical Thinking"

Yet when things you have totally defended for months and months on get flipped around on you all you have to say is.....

NOTHING! You just now go along with the fire explanation as if everything is ok. Now for the next couple of years you will act as if the fire explanation now handed to us by NIST is the bible for 9/11 research.
You will defend it without question!
You will state that this is now 100% factual backed by evidence and that any other theories would be wrong!
When for years you backed a theory and told others that it was a definite just because Nist said so!

Now you will act like this study will never change. You will act as if this has been your stance the entire time and its silly!

WHat would happen if in the future the decided something else caused the WTC7 to fall?
The same as now? Would you notice a trend?
Does it sound logical to keep arguing a point with people that you yourself might have to switched based on New Investigations?

Right now i am in my glory! For i do not like truthers nor do i like the Jrefs school of thought.
Thruthers are moronic and are still considered wrong by the majority, and now the JRef will be forced to hop on the "first build to ever fall because of a fire bandwagon"!

Now defend this fire stance like their is no plausible way it could ever be wrong or change!
It cant be changed right, because its backed by FACTS....

[roundhead]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Unfought fires.

If fires are sucessfully fought, they arent fires anymore.

[Pardalis]

Reasonable people can change their minds according to the available evidence.

So what's your problem, OneShot?

ETA:

Originally Posted by roundhead

If fires are sucessfully fought, they arent fires anymore.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Myriad]

Hi Roundhead,

I've taken the liberty of breaking your compound question into reasonable clauses.

Originally Posted by roundhead

Now kindly point out how your above history lesson has anything to do with WTC 7 being the first building in history to fall victim to this scourge...

Certainly. My history lesson proves that thermal expansion is a well-known physical phenomenon and has been for a long time. It's a response to attempts by other posters to imply that thermal expansion was instead a concept newly fabricated by NIST.





The reason wtc7 was the first building to fall victim to "this scourge" (if indeed it was, rather than simply the first for which the contribution of thermal expansion was recognized) is that it can only happen in a structure that is designed to take advantage of various fire safety systems such as sprinklers, heat-resistant coatings, and fire departments (for instance, it would not happen in a structure designed for fire safety through compartmentalization) but for which those systems fail or their limits are exceeded, AND when various factors such as the length of spans, the locations of fires on multiple floors, and a column carrying an unusually large proportion of the total load all align to create a vulnerability.

Quote:

, and Nist didnt even look at these"oddities" physically,

I haven't read the wtc7 report yet, so I don't know what physical tests they conducted. However, I would not be surprised if they did not perform tests to directly determine the thermal expansion coefficient of steel, as that data is available in any engineering handbook of physical constants. (They probably didn't conduct their own tests of the strength of earth's gravitational field either.)

Quote:

yet came to the illogical conclusion they did,

Where did they state that they came to an illogical conclusion?

Or is that your claim? In which case you're welcome to provide evidence (or at least a coherent rantionale) for it.

Quote:

in spite of other options that could more logically account for the collapse.

Please support this claim by specifying these other options, in comparable detail to what NIST explained about its conclusions at the press conference. Include the causes and the actions of the underlying physical processes, the specific structural members affected, and the rationale for how those phenomena account for the observed behavior of the building.

Respectfully,
Myriad