85 of 91
85
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 04 February 2014 06:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1261 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 03 February 2014 07:12 PM

The chain of evidence behind the attack being carried out by Islamic extremists backed by Al Qaeda is extensive and a continuation for a campaign that was constantly ramping up. There’s no need except an emotional one to extend the conspiracy to bombs planted inside the buildings themselves.

If the intent was to trigger the kind of event that would allow a political agenda to be forced on an unwilling nation, engaging in the kind of extensive plot that would require the participation of not just hundreds but likely thousands of people to pull off at the level the attack occurred would make it almost certain that there would be a substantive leak of information…think of what’s going on now with one of America’s most security conscious organizations the NSA and its inability to prevent the leaking of very damaging information on it’s activities.

The preping of all the WTC buildings for complete demolition would have required the movement of massive amounts of explosives and extensive work to place and prepare the charges…in secure buildings.

Fuzzy, this is the Center for Inquiry, not the center for disingenuous remarks and strawmen. I think you should also consider the title of the thread you are posting in.

Nothing you have written above is relevant to the question of how WTC 7 collapsed in the way it collapsed. I made the simple observation that it is reasonable for a forensic investigation into this question to examine the available physical evidence—indeed it is hard to imagine how the investigation could have been reasonably called “forensic” without doing so. This is not an emotional argument; yours is plainly an appeal to incredulity.

Fuzzy Logic - 03 February 2014 07:12 PM

And it’s not credible to claim WTC 7 was the main target and it alone was rigged for demolition if you’re advocating the demolition hypothesis.

Please quote back from this thread where you think I’ve made this claim. You cannot do so, because you’re creating a strawman. It’s disingenuous remarks like this that have caused this thread to become so extended.

Fuzzy Logic - 03 February 2014 07:12 PM

So we have good evidence for the most likely causes of the buildings failures, the impact of fuel ladden aircraft on the two towers leading to eventual failure. The collapse of WTC 1 sent debris that impacted and damaged WTC 7 and started fires that could potentially have involved several thousand gallons of diesel fuel.

Again, not relevant to the question of how the building collapsed in the way it collapsed, and adding in your own speculation about diesel which was ruled out by the investigating authority. If you’re going to create a theory that you think supersedes the NIST theory, you really should be clear about that.

Fuzzy Logic - 03 February 2014 07:12 PM

The chaos caused by the terrorist attack makes finding definitive answers difficult, so speculation becomes much more possible.

My take on this issue is that some people continue to push it in the beliefs that at some point there will be someone on the “inside” finally speaking out…which I find is a fairly forlorn hope as anyone inclined to do so probably would have a long time ago.

It would have required too many people to pull this off without leaving a detectable trail from other sources than questionable results from a collapse model that relies on incomplete data by its very nature.

Argument from incredulity. You should address the facts of how the building fell and the official explanation’s omission of critical available information, but of course you cannot.

Fuzzy Logic - 03 February 2014 07:12 PM

Personally I find this endless, “prove my conspiracy theories wrong to my satisfaction or I’m right” approach dishonest from a scientific standpoint.

The onus is on the parties making the claim, if you have the evidence then publish it in credible scientific journals where it can be verified by other professionals.

More strawmen; also double standards. Was the NIST report published in credible scientific journals? Why should it not be subject to independent peer review, given that the NIST theory is based on the supposed discovery of a new phenomenon? As it has not been, why are you defending it by demanding that others fufill criteria the NIST report fails to fulfil itself?

The onus on me to prove my assertion that the so-called forensic report into what caused the building to collapsed involved examining precisely zero evidence was easily answered. None of your remarks have addressed this simple point; all of them have tried to obfuscate it.

Fuzzy Logic - 03 February 2014 07:12 PM

And even then the story won’t be over…which is the whole point of science.

So what’s really driving this topic is likely politics.

You’re welcome to speculate on this point, but perhaps you should show how the position you take on what you believe caused the building to collapse is supported by any kind of investigative application of the scientific method. Otherwise you’ll just look like a hypocrite, won’t you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2014 06:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1262 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
citizenschallenge.pm - 03 February 2014 08:21 PM

Well said - it would make a fitting closing to this never-ending thread.

In other words, you got your ass handed to you so completely at post 1258—on such a simple and obvious question as whether or not forensic investigations should examine physical evidence, and why—that you’re desperate to close the discussion to save yourself further embarrassment.

At least, that’s the way it looks grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2014 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1263 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 04 February 2014 06:22 AM

Fuzzy, this is the Center for Inquiry, not the center for disingenuous remarks and strawmen. I think you should also consider the title of the thread you are posting in.

Science isn’t about the loudest or most persistent voice eventually beating all others into submission, it’s about the best explanation for verifiable evidence being presented in a way that allows other scientists to confirm or falsify the original claims…and even then it’s not over. Science is an open ended process.

What you seem to be looking for is the kind of finality that’s available in courts or the political process where one individual or party “defeats” another.

When you start posting peer-reviewed articles that firmly establish, based on physical evidence, what most people consider to be fringe beliefs then I’ll listen…long enough to see how much confidence there is in the result. And even then I’ll be skeptical, which is after all the underlying philosophy of science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2014 11:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1264 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4260
Joined  2010-08-15

You mean this thing?

jomper - 02 February 2014 03:24 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 04:35 PM
jomper - 20 January 2014 08:16 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 20 January 2014 07:44 AM

Seems to me the official report did the best it could given the situation

Perhaps you would join me in deploring the fact that not a single piece of the available physical evidence from the building was analysed in the production of the report. Is this really what you consider “the best” that could be done?

For starters, I don’t trust your claim.

In other words, you can’t be bothered to research the subject so you’re attempting to hand-wave it away by saying you don’t trust the uncontested facts.

If you had bothered to look as far as the NIST FAQ on the WTC 7 collapse you would have found the (extremely weak) official response to this issue:

28. NIST’s entire investigation included no physical evidence.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 04:35 PM

For seconds, it’s vague as hell - What physical evidence was supposed be to analyzed with what tests, looking for what?

If you had bothered to read any of the earlier reports you would know that

Appendix C of FEMA’s 2002 Building Performance Study documented the existence of several beams from World Trade Center Building 7 that had experienced a “severe high temperature corrosion attack.”1 The New York Times called this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”2

...

Unfortunately, the National Institute of Standards and Technology did not follow up on the FEMA Building Performance Study’s call for further analysis of this steel in its subsequent multi-year investigation into the destruction of Building 7

http://rethink911.org/evidence/building-7/melted-steel/

Guess you’re right no matter how I look at it.
I just know the days are too short, to waste more time on this than I already have in getting caught up in this conversation now and then.
It’s another one of many smoke’n mirrors games meant to keep our attention away from genuinely important issues.
I was just trying to fathom how that mind-set and way of thinking works,
still in the end all your talk sounds hollow, but you’ll always be right.  Fair enough.

Oh, and why I won’t waste time on that worm-hole?  Because, I can easily visualize how that collapse happened, as can most others who have looked into it.  There’s no mystery.  Only games some people insist on playing.

While life keeps racing past,

Happy Trails.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2014 04:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1265 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 05 February 2014 05:03 PM
jomper - 04 February 2014 06:22 AM

Fuzzy, this is the Center for Inquiry, not the center for disingenuous remarks and strawmen. I think you should also consider the title of the thread you are posting in.

Science isn’t about the loudest or most persistent voice eventually beating all others into submission, it’s about the best explanation for verifiable evidence being presented in a way that allows other scientists to confirm or falsify the original claims…and even then it’s not over. Science is an open ended process.

What you seem to be looking for is the kind of finality that’s available in courts or the political process where one individual or party “defeats” another.

When you start posting peer-reviewed articles that firmly establish, based on physical evidence, what most people consider to be fringe beliefs then I’ll listen…long enough to see how much confidence there is in the result. And even then I’ll be skeptical, which is after all the underlying philosophy of science.

Fuzzy, this isn’t the Center for Double Standards either. One of my objections to the NIST WTC 7 report is that it was not peer-reviewed, while the computer animation which NIST offered in substitute for the analysis of any physical evidence from the building at all is classified and not available for independent verification. So your call for physical evidence and peer reviewed research in response to this lamentable reality is pure hypocrisy: “most people” do not realise the NIST report is so transparently unscientific.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2014 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1266 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
citizenschallenge.pm - 05 February 2014 11:44 PM

You mean this thing?

jomper - 02 February 2014 03:24 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 04:35 PM
jomper - 20 January 2014 08:16 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 20 January 2014 07:44 AM

Seems to me the official report did the best it could given the situation

Perhaps you would join me in deploring the fact that not a single piece of the available physical evidence from the building was analysed in the production of the report. Is this really what you consider “the best” that could be done?

For starters, I don’t trust your claim.

In other words, you can’t be bothered to research the subject so you’re attempting to hand-wave it away by saying you don’t trust the uncontested facts.

If you had bothered to look as far as the NIST FAQ on the WTC 7 collapse you would have found the (extremely weak) official response to this issue:

28. NIST’s entire investigation included no physical evidence.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 04:35 PM

For seconds, it’s vague as hell - What physical evidence was supposed be to analyzed with what tests, looking for what?

If you had bothered to read any of the earlier reports you would know that

Appendix C of FEMA’s 2002 Building Performance Study documented the existence of several beams from World Trade Center Building 7 that had experienced a “severe high temperature corrosion attack.”1 The New York Times called this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”2

...

Unfortunately, the National Institute of Standards and Technology did not follow up on the FEMA Building Performance Study’s call for further analysis of this steel in its subsequent multi-year investigation into the destruction of Building 7

http://rethink911.org/evidence/building-7/melted-steel/

Guess you’re right no matter how I look at it.
I just know the days are too short, to waste more time on this than I already have in getting caught up in this conversation now and then.
It’s another one of many smoke’n mirrors games meant to keep our attention away from genuinely important issues.
I was just trying to fathom how that mind-set and way of thinking works,
still in the end all your talk sounds hollow, but you’ll always be right.  Fair enough.

Oh, and why I won’t waste time on that worm-hole?  Because, I can easily visualize how that collapse happened, as can most others who have looked into it.  There’s no mystery.  Only games some people insist on playing.

While life keeps racing past,

Happy Trails.

You can “easily visualize what happened?”

Then you have done better than the multi-million dollar NIST investigation, which “had a hard time getting a handle on” the cause of the collapse for years, and finally came up with a computer animation that looks quite unlike the video evidence of the event—to accompany a report that omitted critical elements from the structural plans in support of an artificially unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Make no mistake, citizenschallenge.pm: I am under no illusion that I can persuade you—or anyone else—that the NIST investigation is discredited: I am merely interested in the rhetorical and logical fallacies people like you and Fuzzy come up with in avoidance of the banal realities of this case (as for example: the investigation examined precisely zero physical evidence in the production of its report, even though physical evidence that showed the structural steel was subject to a “mysterious” eutectic attack was available).

I am fascinated by the twists and turns (what you call “smoke and mirrors”) you indulge in an attempt to maintain a vague patina of rationality and reasonable skepticism with respect to the issue at hand.

[ Edited: 09 February 2014 05:22 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2014 08:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1267 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 05 February 2014 11:44 PM

I can easily visualize how that collapse happened, as can most others who have looked into it.

I recently watched this great Einstein documentary.  The best I have seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcXxHZssCh4

But the “experts"demanded experimental evidence for relativity not just mathematics.

Curious how that does not apply to 9/11 after 12 years.

Computers everywhere and we can’t do good physical models or computer models of collapsing skyscrapers even though the Empire State Building is 83 years old.  And it was designed without electronic computers.  No transistors until 1947.

Where does the Conservation of Momentum fit into these visualizations?  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2014 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1268 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 09 February 2014 04:49 AM

Fuzzy, this isn’t the Center for Double Standards either. One of my objections to the NIST WTC 7 report is that it was not peer-reviewed, while the computer animation which NIST offered in substitute for the analysis of any physical evidence from the building at all is classified and not available for independent verification. So your call for physical evidence and peer reviewed research in response to this lamentable reality is pure hypocrisy: “most people” do not realise the NIST report is so transparently unscientific.

Without accurate data and a way to verify it then you don’t have “scientific” evidence which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

You go from that condition and create an elaborate and so far unsupported conspiracy theory that while I’m sure it gives some people a great deal of fodder for useless speculation, doesn’t inform us of anything meaningful.

The fact remains, if there is any credible evidence of this vast conspiracy then lets see it…otherwise this is just meaningless posturing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1269 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 09 February 2014 02:49 PM

Without accurate data and a way to verify it then you don’t have “scientific” evidence which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

You go from that condition and create an elaborate and so far unsupported conspiracy theory… 

Now that is a hilarious statement.

Aren’t we talking about buildings that have to hold themselves up against gravity?  Isn’t gravity pretty constant all over the planet?  There are more than 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall.

The issue is not conspiracies.  The issue is why this simple physics problem was not indisputably resolved in 2002.

But you say we don’t have accurate data.  So why weren’t all of the “scientists” and “engineers” demanding it in 2002?

So you admit we don’t have scientific evidence for a gravitational collapse either?

psik

[ Edited: 10 February 2014 12:37 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1270 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 10 February 2014 08:38 AM
Fuzzy Logic - 09 February 2014 02:49 PM

Without accurate data and a way to verify it then you don’t have “scientific” evidence which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

You go from that condition and create an elaborate and so far unsupported conspiracy theory… 

Now that is a hilarious statement.

Aren’t we talking about buildings that have to hold themselves up against gravity?  Isn’t gravity pretty constant all over the planet?  There are more than 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall.

The issue is not conspiracies.  The issue is why this simple physics problem was not indisputably resolved in 2002.

But you say we don’t have accurate data.  So why weren’t all of the “scientists” and “engineers” demanding it in 2002?

So you admit we don’t have scientific evidence for a gravitational collapse either?

psik

Aren’t you the person who was saying the airliners couldn’t have brought the towers down because they only deflected the buildings by 15 inches. If you have no real grasp of the issue then I can see how it would seem hilarious.

My point was that crashing airliners into skyscrapers is an inherently chaotic process and it’s difficult to simulate the effects precisely because there was no one there taking precise measurements and much of the evidence was destroyed. The same applies to WTC 7 which was hit by debris from WTC 1 which caused damage that we don’t and never will have accurate data on. This resulted in structural damage that likely played a part in the eventual collapse.

There was also thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and there is no way to know how much burned over the eight or so hours the building was on fire with some floors receiving no water for fire suppression. So we also lack data 0n how hot it got in some parts of the building and how soft some of the remaining steel supports got.

If some people go from the inherent doubt that exists around this event to, “It must have been old Georgie with his finger on the button blowing them buildings up”, that says far more about how they process information that it does about the exact mechanism of failure of the buildings.

[ Edited: 14 February 2014 03:39 PM by Fuzzy Logic ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 04:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1271 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 13 February 2014 06:47 PM

Aren’t you the person who was saying the airliners couldn’t have brought the towers down because they only deflected the buildings by 15 inches. If you have no real grasp of the issue then I can see how it would seem hilarious.

No that is not what I have been saying.

That is a gross oversimplification of a combination of FACTS.

Deflecting the building takes energy and the distribution of mass would be a factor in computing that energy.

So the amount of energy that went into DAMAGING the building cannot be computed without knowing how much was lost on deflecting the building.  To date I have not even seen that discussed by any “experts” much less computed.  Wouldn’t that qualify as part of a “scientific” investigation?

That deflection is one of at least three reasons for wanting accurate data on the distribution of mass in steel and concrete down the towers to “scientifically” analyse these events.  The Potential Energy of the towers cannot even be accurately computed without that data.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1272 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 14 February 2014 04:18 PM

No that is not what I have been saying.

That is a gross oversimplification of a combination of FACTS.

Deflecting the building takes energy and the distribution of mass would be a factor in computing that energy.

So the amount of energy that went into DAMAGING the building cannot be computed without knowing how much was lost on deflecting the building.  To date I have not even seen that discussed by any “experts” much less computed.  Wouldn’t that qualify as part of a “scientific” investigation?

That deflection is one of at least three reasons for wanting accurate data on the distribution of mass in steel and concrete down the towers to “scientifically” analyse these events.  The Potential Energy of the towers cannot even be accurately computed without that data.

psik

No it’s not. the amount of deflection is irrelevant.

The relevant issue is how many support columns were severed on impact and how much structural integrity was lost as several thousand gallons of jet fuel burned in the floors where the initial damage was done weakening the steel in the floors themselves. These tied into the outer steel columns providing the overall structural integrity for the building.

The fact you’re trying to apply the force across the buildings as a whole indicates to me you have no real grasp of the actual mechanism of failure involved.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1273 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 14 February 2014 04:51 PM

No it’s not. the amount of deflection is irrelevant.

ROFLMAO

The NIST says the south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor.  That was as high as the camera pointed.

The plane impacted at the 81st floor.

Nowhere will you find any data stating that the building deflected 15 inches.  But if it deflected 12 inches 11 stories below the impact level then it had to deflect more at the impact level, so I computed that by extrapolation.  But if it deflected 11 stories below where the plane hit then the same thing had to happen above where the plane hit.

Now one floor assembly weighed 750 tons.  So this means 20 times 750 tons moved a foot or more in about half a second.  And that is just the floors outside the core.  It doesn’t count all of the steel in the core and on the perimeter.  But the plane hit at 81 and there were mechanical floors at 76 and 77 which were much heavier than normal floors.

So you are saying all of that mass moving a foot in half a second is irrelevant when you have not even tried to estimate how much it was.

This 9/11 business is scientifically ridiculous with BELIEVERS who can’t even think to wonder about the obvious science.  LOL

[30566]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1274 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 14 February 2014 05:28 PM
Fuzzy Logic - 14 February 2014 04:51 PM

No it’s not. the amount of deflection is irrelevant.

ROFLMAO

The NIST says the south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor.  That was as high as the camera pointed.

The plane impacted at the 81st floor.

Nowhere will you find any data stating that the building deflected 15 inches.  But if it deflected 12 inches 11 stories below the impact level then it had to deflect more at the impact level, so I computed that by extrapolation.  But if it deflected 11 stories below where the plane hit then the same thing had to happen above where the plane hit.

Now one floor assembly weighed 750 tons.  So this means 20 times 750 tons moved a foot or more in about half a second.  And that is just the floors outside the core.  It doesn’t count all of the steel in the core and on the perimeter.  But the plane hit at 81 and there were mechanical floors at 76 and 77 which were much heavier than normal floors.

So you are saying all of that mass moving a foot in half a second is irrelevant when you have not even tried to estimate how much it was.

This 9/11 business is scientifically ridiculous with BELIEVERS who can’t even think to wonder about the obvious science.  LOL

[30566]
psik

The impact of high speed fully loaded airliners did massive physical damage to the outer structure of the towers where they hit which can be seen from the extensive photographic evidence and the disintegration of the planes mixed with the outer shell of the buildings acted as a massive shotgun effect which carried across to the other side of the building and also did significant damage to at least one side as can be seen from the videos of the south tower impact. This would have stripped the fireproof insulation from the steel support beams in the floor which tied the outer support columns to the inner core structure. Over an hour of intense fire weakened the steel floor beams and the stress from the mass above the damage caused a local structural failure which turned into a cascade effect as the part of the structure above the damaged area dropped onto lower floors.

Which has nothing to do with how much the impacts deflected the buildings.

It’s just one more way to keep a debate going that is already well explained.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 08:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1275 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  760
Joined  2012-04-25

You guys are still at it. But let me ask both sides something. Let’s pretend a company had come in weeks before 911 and did a full and total structural xray of both towers, top to bottom. Their results surface tomorrow and they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no explosives planted in the buildings, nothing other than normal buildings. And therefore the results prove there was no foul play. The crash of the two planes are the cause.

My question is, so what? Do you honestly think everything about 911 being an inside job, or possibly being allowed to occur, boils down to the collapse of the twin towers? Everything else is irrelevant?

Profile
 
 
   
85 of 91
85