2 of 91
2
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 02 July 2012 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

Geez, are we going to start this whole strangeness again?  It was covered at extreme length in another thread, so it’s doubtful that anything new will be presented in this one.  I’m sure there are quite a few whole websites devoted to discussing this.  Wouldn’t it be far more intelligent to go to them to talk with experts on both sides than trying to have an educated discussion with people who have only a peripheral knowledge of the topic?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
CuthbertJ - 02 July 2012 11:16 AM

See my post right before yours.  I should stay away but your comment about no greater understanding than “fire destroys things…” is just so silly.

It’s a straight forward, if overly simplistic fact.

Therefore even buildings designed to resist long term fires are destroyed simply because “fire destroys things”?

Fire resistant does not equate to fire immunity. You could argue my clothes are fire resistant, just not for very long.

With regards to the WTC towers, it would be actually correct to state that gravity destroyed the buildings.

But that would be nitpicking semantics and wasting time, to be blunt.

Or (non-911 related example) ceramics designed to withstand 1000F will be destroyed by 500F fire because “fire destroys things”.  I mean that’s almost caveman logic. Fire bad, do bad things!  I don’t agree or disagree with Fullerton, but geez your logic is goofy.

I suppose I could’ve said fire is a chemical chain reaction that imparts physical and chemical changes to that which it is consuming or heating, but for the moment I see no reason to go beyond keeping the conversation simple.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Occam. - 02 July 2012 11:25 AM

Geez, are we going to start this whole strangeness again?  It was covered at extreme length in another thread, so it’s doubtful that anything new will be presented in this one.  I’m sure there are quite a few whole websites devoted to discussing this.  Wouldn’t it be far more intelligent to go to them to talk with experts on both sides than trying to have an educated discussion with people who have only a peripheral knowledge of the topic?

Occam

Again, I’ve looked at all the 9/11 threads here and none mention any scientific evidence to support the official WTC 7 fall hypothesis. I am in fact an expert on this issue and have never seen any websites out there deal that with this particular topic in any adult science-based manner.

Instead of wholly unsupported pronouncements why don’t you simply present the evidence you imply is so readily available? The only conclusion we can come to is that there in fact is no evidence. CFI supports an explanation that, like flat Earth theory, has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 11:37 AM

Again, I’ve looked at all the 9/11 threads here and none mention any scientific evidence to support the official WTC 7 fall hypothesis. I am in fact an expert on this issue and have never seen any websites out there deal that with this particular topic in any adult science-based manner.

Instead of wholly unsupported pronouncements why don’t you simply present the evidence you imply is so readily available? The only conclusion we can come to is that there in fact is no evidence. CFI supports an explanation that, like flat Earth theory, has absolutely no evidence to support it.

So your argument is there is no evidence of fires taking place in WTC 7?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 11:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

I havent read through the old thread that preceded this one on the very same topic and went on forever but whenever I hear conspiracy claims I try to imagine myself in the mind of the conspirator and decide if producing such a conspiracy makes any sense logistically. The first time I did this was with the O.J Simpson trial and the claims of a conspiracy by the defense attorneys. While the prosecutors clearly made some errors, the proposed conspiracy by law enforcement that supposedly framed him made no sense at all from a logistical standpoint or form a standpoint of motive.

The same thing applies to the WTC 911 conspiracy. It makes no sense at all. They are implying that the CIA ( Or whom ever) conspired to bring down the WTC and other targets for whatever reasons. Apparently they conned a bunch of middle eastern men with close ties to Al Qaeda to train for and then follow through on a suicide mission for their hated enemies. Then they decided that crashing two airliners into the WTC wasn’t going to be spectacular enough to accomplish their goals ( that part alone is incredibly difficult to believe) so they took the risky approach of secretly planting explosives in the building and somehow no one, not even the building maintenance people detected this was going on. On what level does that make any sense what so ever?? Seriously? Two huge airliners crashing into the tallest buildings in one of the greatest cities in the country wasn’t enough to get the point across????

Then to top it off the 911 deniers claim that even though they clearly trained people to crash planes into the WTC the plane that hit the pentagon didnt actually hit the pentagon. They claim that was all faked despite lots of witnesses. Why would they fake this if they already had trained people who could do this? How in the world is it easier to fake it than to just crash a real plane into the pentagon?

The problem with all of these theories as with the moon landing conspiracy theory is that they are just logistically dumb. In most cases it would be far easier to do things the way we all believe they were done ( ie. actually land on the moon, or actually crash a plane into a structure) than to perform the elaborate schemes required to fake the event.

Conspiracy theorists are much like religious believers. They have found a home among like minded individuals and have invested a lot of time and emotion in believing these things. Its virtually impossible to get them to see how illogical their theories are.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

The thing is 9/11 was a conspiracy. Islamic terrorists plotted to attack America by hijacking commercial airliners and flying them into targets at high speeds and fully loaded with highly explosive, combustible jet fuel.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 12:19 PM

The thing is 9/11 was a conspiracy. Islamic terrorists plotted to attack America by hijacking commercial airliners and flying them into targets at high speeds and fully loaded with highly explosive, combustible jet fuel.

Smacks head.. now if only the conspiracy theorists had thought of that.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 05:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

I havent read through the old thread that preceded this one on the very same topic and went on forever but whenever I hear conspiracy claims I try to imagine myself in the mind of the conspirator and decide if producing such a conspiracy makes any sense logistically.

Grand conspiracy theories only make sense if the socio/cultural/political/religious conditions which are pionted to now existed back in the time when the World Trade Center was built and they didn’t.

In case nobody has noticed, back when the WTC was built, Iran was our ally, Iraq was our ally, the Soviets were our enemy but they would never have been stupid enough to try something like this, and nobody gave a flying flip about Afghanistan. Who then would the evil and neferious schemers have been plotting against?

And just who would these evil and neferious schemers be? The CIA?

Give me a break! They couldn’t even get rid of a tin pot dictator on a Carribean island called Cuba without failing in fine embarrassing fashion!

As to WTC-7, this has been explained in fine fashion on the pages of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. See http://www.csicop.org/search?cx=partner-pub-7990294390318881:kq7omegpkyf&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=WTC+7&sa;=» and

And example from the Skeptic’s Society: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

I won’t be wasting any further time with this nonsense.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4622
Joined  2007-10-05

@Robert Walper. Welcome to the CFI forums. Please say hello in the Introductions forums.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Michael Fullerton - 01 July 2012 07:16 PM

Can anyone here provide any scientific evidence whatsoever to support the official explanation that WTC 7 fell on 9/11 2001 due only to fire damage?

What are YOUR credentials. Why do you think your training even makes you competent to debate the subject? Would you debate which chemotherapy agent should be used for your cancer treatment here? Or what method should be used by your neurosurgeon to treat whatever is going on inside your brain? Would you debate here about how to best build an airplane, a suspension bridge? It is laughable how many people suddenly convinced themselves that they are more expert in failure analysis than those who taken the proscribed courses to be recognized as experts in the field. Science is not science is NOT science. I have trained in the science of medicine. I have no such illusions that this makes me an expert in any other scientific field. When I want to know why something failed, I go to the experts in the field of failure analysis. When I want the aneurysm in my brain removed, I consult a neurosurgeon, taking care I never mix the two up.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 09:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  373
Joined  2012-02-02

What purpose would be served by lying about why the building was destroyed?  Or is the implication that the people in charge of the investigation were inept?  (Mind you, the engineers who helped design the WTC complex were frantically trying to contact the authorities on 9/11 to tell them to evacuate the area as the buildings weren’t designed for such an impact.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2012 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 July 2012 05:48 PM

As to WTC-7, this has been explained in fine fashion on the pages of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. See http://www.csicop.org/search?cx=partner-pub-7990294390318881:kq7omegpkyf&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=WTC+7&sa;=» and

And example from the Skeptic’s Society: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

I won’t be wasting any further time with this nonsense.

Unsupported pronouncements, logical fallacies and unreplicated unverified experiments are not explanations. They are BS. All you have to support the crackpot hypothesis you believe in without question is BS. CFI, in supporting this purely faith-based hypothesis as fact is actuality supporting uncritical thinking. This is a gross misrepresentation of its supposed mission.

You won’t be wasting time with this because like all others driven by faith alone, you can’t support the ridiculous BS you believe in.

[ Edited: 08 July 2012 11:32 AM by Michael Fullerton ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2012 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 04 July 2012 09:22 AM

Unsupported pronouncements, logical fallacies and unreplicated unverified experiments are not explanations. They are BS. All you have to support the crackpot hypothesis you believe in without question is BS. CFI, in supporting this purely faith-based hypothesis as fact is actuality supporting uncritical thinking. This is a gross misrepresentation of its supposed mission.

You won’t be wasting time with this because like all others driven by faith alone, you can’t support the ridiculous BS you believe in.

From Wikipedia:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

So what you’re saying Michael is that the fire chief and fire fighters on the scene are all a bunch of liars, and observations of fires burning uncontrolled for many hours, failed sprinkler systems and structural damage inflicted by fire wasn’t sufficient to bring down the building?

On what basis do you subscribe to this ridiculous conclusion?

[ Edited: 04 July 2012 11:01 AM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2012 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 04 July 2012 10:58 AM
Michael Fullerton - 04 July 2012 09:22 AM

Unsupported pronouncements, logical fallacies and unreplicated unverified experiments are not explanations. They are BS. All you have to support the crackpot hypothesis you believe in without question is BS. CFI, in supporting this purely faith-based hypothesis as fact is actuality supporting uncritical thinking. This is a gross misrepresentation of its supposed mission.

You won’t be wasting time with this because like all others driven by faith alone, you can’t support the ridiculous BS you believe in.

From Wikipedia:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

So what you’re saying Michael is that the fire chief and fire fighters on the scene are all a bunch of liars, and observations of fires burning uncontrolled for many hours, failed sprinkler systems and structural damage inflicted by fire wasn’t sufficient to bring down the building?

On what basis do you subscribe to this ridiculous conclusion?

Wow a straw man and a burden of proof logical fallacy. You are making the claim that fire damage brought down the building. It is you that needs to provide evidence of that. You have evidence that WTC 7 sustained fire damage but no evidence that that damage alone brought it down. All you have is a crackpot hypothesis supported by faith.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2012 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 04 July 2012 11:16 AM

You are making the claim that fire damage brought down the building.

Correct.

It is you that needs to provide evidence of that.

Correct.

You have evidence that WTC 7 sustained fire damage

Ta da!

but no evidence that that damage alone brought it down. All you have is a crackpot hypothesis supported by faith.

I did my part. I claimed fire damage is what brought the building down, and you admit I have presented evidence of fire damage.

Now you are making the claim fire damage is not sufficient to do so. Justify this claim.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 91
2