53 of 91
53
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 14 November 2013 08:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 781 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

OK how many times has a building been exposed to one of the tallest, most massive, buildings in world collapsing next to and right into it?

And WTC7 did spend an awful lot of time burning… that would be exposing structural elements to extreme (structurally destabilizing) heat.

no ?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 November 2013 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 782 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
citizenschallenge.pm - 14 November 2013 08:50 PM

And WTC7 did spend an awful lot of time burning… that would be exposing structural elements to extreme (structurally destabilizing) heat.

no ?

Correct. It is very simple science, heat from fire easily causes structures to collapse. Look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3xQkwfnHg

A steel and concrete bridge collapses when exposed to just forty minutes of heat from fire, even when firefighters tried to put it out with water.

But apparently it’s unimaginable to our local 9/11 truthers that towers exposed to intense heat without the benefit of any water and the added stress of holding up the mass of entire buildings might also happen to collapse as well.

And here’s another example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZH5lGFi3Fs

Must be a bridge conspiracy! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 November 2013 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 783 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  814
Joined  2012-04-25

Thought I’d jump in just because this last comment is pretty silly.  I can’t check out the videos currently so if my point is addressed there I apologize.  You said “It is very simple science, heat from fire easily causes structures to collapse.” That’s flat out wrong. It’s not simple at all. Therre are plenty of variables that come into play, for example, most importantly, how hot is the fire burning and what type of material is being exposed.  This is a silly example but it makes the point: some ceramics can withstand 1000’s of degrees. So a building made of the right type of ceramics, exposed to temperatures well under 1000, could burn forever, so to speak, and would never weaken the building. How this applies to the towers is another story probably covered somewhere in this thread already.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 November 2013 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 784 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
CuthbertJ - 15 November 2013 11:15 AM

Thought I’d jump in just because this last comment is pretty silly.  I can’t check out the videos currently so if my point is addressed there I apologize.  You said “It is very simple science, heat from fire easily causes structures to collapse.” That’s flat out wrong. It’s not simple at all. Therre are plenty of variables that come into play, for example, most importantly, how hot is the fire burning and what type of material is being exposed.  This is a silly example but it makes the point: some ceramics can withstand 1000’s of degrees. So a building made of the right type of ceramics, exposed to temperatures well under 1000, could burn forever, so to speak, and would never weaken the building. How this applies to the towers is another story probably covered somewhere in this thread already.

My statement wasn’t meant to imply that any structure made of any material will collapse when exposed to fire of any kind.

I merely asserted that fire can easily cause a structure to collapse, in this case made of steel and concrete structures, which are the primary building materials being discussed and I posted direct evidence of this occurring.

As for your objection to my claim ‘simple’, it is simple to me, although I understand that is relative assessment. I wasn’t claiming there isn’t a lot of variables in such asessments.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2013 05:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 785 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2013-12-01
Robert Walper - 15 November 2013 02:17 PM
CuthbertJ - 15 November 2013 11:15 AM

Thought I’d jump in just because this last comment is pretty silly.  I can’t check out the videos currently so if my point is addressed there I apologize.  You said “It is very simple science, heat from fire easily causes structures to collapse.” That’s flat out wrong. It’s not simple at all. Therre are plenty of variables that come into play, for example, most importantly, how hot is the fire burning and what type of material is being exposed.  This is a silly example but it makes the point: some ceramics can withstand 1000’s of degrees. So a building made of the right type of ceramics, exposed to temperatures well under 1000, could burn forever, so to speak, and would never weaken the building. How this applies to the towers is another story probably covered somewhere in this thread already.

My statement wasn’t meant to imply that any structure made of any material will collapse when exposed to fire of any kind.

I merely asserted that fire can easily cause a structure to collapse, in this case made of steel and concrete structures, which are the primary building materials being discussed and I posted direct evidence of this occurring.

As for your objection to my claim ‘simple’, it is simple to me, although I understand that is relative assessment. I wasn’t claiming there isn’t a lot of variables in such asessments.

If indeed fire could easily cause a high rise steel building to collapse, then why has this never happened before?
Comparisons between such buildings and bridges are useless and also, if this issue is ‘simple’ to you that would indicate a gross misunderstanding of the variables at play within building 7 on the day of 911. It amuses me that people such as yourself can assert to be simple an issue such as this that NIST took years to construct a half baked report about which had to exclude numerous crucial structural elements around the alleged initiating point of collapse.
My question to you would be - have you even looked at the drawings for the building and examined them relative to NISTs account. I would guess that you have not, and this is why you swallow NISTs thermal expansion nonsense hook, line and sinker. Simple indeed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2013 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 786 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
electric_thistle - 01 December 2013 05:47 PM
Robert Walper - 15 November 2013 02:17 PM
CuthbertJ - 15 November 2013 11:15 AM

Thought I’d jump in just because this last comment is pretty silly.  I can’t check out the videos currently so if my point is addressed there I apologize.  You said “It is very simple science, heat from fire easily causes structures to collapse.” That’s flat out wrong. It’s not simple at all. Therre are plenty of variables that come into play, for example, most importantly, how hot is the fire burning and what type of material is being exposed.  This is a silly example but it makes the point: some ceramics can withstand 1000’s of degrees. So a building made of the right type of ceramics, exposed to temperatures well under 1000, could burn forever, so to speak, and would never weaken the building. How this applies to the towers is another story probably covered somewhere in this thread already.

My statement wasn’t meant to imply that any structure made of any material will collapse when exposed to fire of any kind.

I merely asserted that fire can easily cause a structure to collapse, in this case made of steel and concrete structures, which are the primary building materials being discussed and I posted direct evidence of this occurring.

As for your objection to my claim ‘simple’, it is simple to me, although I understand that is relative assessment. I wasn’t claiming there isn’t a lot of variables in such asessments.

If indeed fire could easily cause a high rise steel building to collapse, then why has this never happened before?
Comparisons between such buildings and bridges are useless and also, if this issue is ‘simple’ to you that would indicate a gross misunderstanding of the variables at play within building 7 on the day of 911. It amuses me that people such as yourself can assert to be simple an issue such as this that NIST took years to construct a half baked report about which had to exclude numerous crucial structural elements around the alleged initiating point of collapse.
My question to you would be - have you even looked at the drawings for the building and examined them relative to NISTs account. I would guess that you have not, and this is why you swallow NISTs thermal expansion nonsense hook, line and sinker. Simple indeed.

Then by all means, submit your analysis that is superior to the NIST report.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2013 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 787 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2013-12-01

Then by all means, submit your analysis that is superior to the NIST report.

NIST got it wrong on WTC7, that is the simple thing about their report. I think these videos have already been posted here, but just to repeat the point, here is my analysis of where NIST went wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALvTbskML0E&list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl&index=0
There are parts that NIST have already responded to, and these have been validated by them as errors, as you can see in their erratum statement.
So where exactly do you disagree with my analysis?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2013 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 788 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
electric_thistle - 01 December 2013 06:23 PM

Then by all means, submit your analysis that is superior to the NIST report.

NIST got it wrong on WTC7, that is the simple thing about their report. I think these videos have already been posted here, but just to repeat the point, here is my analysis of where NIST went wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALvTbskML0E&list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl&index=0
There are parts that NIST have already responded to, and these have been validated by them as errors, as you can see in their erratum statement.
So where exactly do you disagree with my analysis?

Who cares where I disagree with your analysis. Submit it for peer review with the scientific community experts who are qualified in the fields you’re talking about.

Submiting it here just proves you’re too scared to submit to actual experts and instead waste time submitting it to laypeople.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2013 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 789 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2013-12-01
Robert Walper - 01 December 2013 08:06 PM

Who cares where I disagree with your analysis. Submit it for peer review with the scientific community experts who are qualified in the fields you’re talking about.

Submiting it here just proves you’re too scared to submit to actual experts and instead waste time submitting it to laypeople.

So you cannot dispute the facts presented to you so you try to deflect the issue with nonsense. There is no need to peer review the structural drawings, and what NIST have stated in their report is quite clearly at odds with those drawings. That you presume that the information that i cited to you has not been seen and approved by other engineering professionals is an error on your part.
In post#786 you said “Then by all means, submit your analysis that is superior to the NIST report”
I did this and your response is basically - take it elsewhere to get peer reviewed. You clearly cannot dispute the content, and should just admit that NIST made these errors.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2013 10:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 790 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
electric_thistle - 01 December 2013 08:15 PM
Robert Walper - 01 December 2013 08:06 PM

Who cares where I disagree with your analysis. Submit it for peer review with the scientific community experts who are qualified in the fields you’re talking about.

Submiting it here just proves you’re too scared to submit to actual experts and instead waste time submitting it to laypeople.

So you cannot dispute the facts presented to you so you try to deflect the issue with nonsense. There is no need to peer review the structural drawings, and what NIST have stated in their report is quite clearly at odds with those drawings. That you presume that the information that i cited to you has not been seen and approved by other engineering professionals is an error on your part.
In post#786 you said “Then by all means, submit your analysis that is superior to the NIST report”
I did this and your response is basically - take it elsewhere to get peer reviewed. You clearly cannot dispute the content, and should just admit that NIST made these errors.

Clearly you do not understand what peer review is when you’re trying to submit your analysis to a forum of lay people.

If you can’t be bothered to understand how peer review works, no one needs to concern themselves with your ‘analysis’.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2013 11:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 791 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2013-12-01
Robert Walper - 01 December 2013 10:43 PM
electric_thistle - 01 December 2013 08:15 PM

Clearly you do not understand what peer review is when you’re trying to submit your analysis to a forum of lay people.

If you can’t be bothered to understand how peer review works, no one needs to concern themselves with your ‘analysis’.

More nonsense with no substance. Which journal would you suggest, and why are you now backing away from your statement that requested that i present my analysis to this forum? If such a presentation demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the scientific community functions, then why did you suggest it?
Clearly you struggle with this concept, and others.
You made a challenge, i responded, and now you criticise me for responding, rather than trying to address the points that are made. Genius ....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2013 01:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 792 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
electric_thistle - 01 December 2013 11:06 PM

More nonsense with no substance. Which journal would you suggest, and why are you now backing away from your statement that requested that i present my analysis to this forum? If such a presentation demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the scientific community functions, then why did you suggest it?
Clearly you struggle with this concept, and others.
You made a challenge, i responded, and now you criticise me for responding, rather than trying to address the points that are made. Genius ....

This forum isn’t the scientific community, ‘genius’. When I tell you to submit your analysis, I mean submit it for scientific peer review. Not to the CFI forums filled with lay people.

The fact I have to explain that process to you is what makes your ability to conduct any kind of ‘analysis’ highly questionable by default. You don’t even know how peer review works, hence why you try presenting your ‘findings’ here rather to the appropriate collection of experts in the actual scientific community.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2013 06:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 793 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 10:42 AM
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:33 AM

The burden of proof is on those making a claim. CFI by supporting the official WTC 7 explanation is implicitly making this claim and is supposed to provide evidence of their claim. So it is actually you who is shifting the burden of proof and committing this fallacy.

I just finished pointing out that uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 for the better part of a day brought it down. This is consistent with the proven observation ‘fires destroy things, including structures’ and the observation of multiple uncontrolled fires taking place in WTC 7.

An appeal to ignorance states that there is no evidence for P therefore not P. I did not state that because there is no evidence for the official WTC 7 theory it is false. So you fabricated a position for me to knock down. You committed the straw man fallacy.

The current explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is uncontrolled fires burning for the better part of a day, causing critical support structure failure and bringing the building down.

This requires no greater understanding than ‘fires destroy things, including large structures’.

Plus all of the underying damage that resulted from the collapse of other buildings, which some people want to ignore. In order to know more about the effects of such conditions, we need more collapsing skyscrapers to study. Fortunately, there are too few to study so, IMO, we have to use Ockham’s razor.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2013 06:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 794 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 02 December 2013 06:20 AM

Plus all of the underying damage that resulted from the collapse of other buildings, which some people want to ignore.

Lois do you have your own theory about the collapse of WTC 7 that is different from NIST’s? NIST attributed the collapse to office fires only and concluded that other factors—such as impact of debris from the Towers—were not significant in causing the building to fall.

I have stated that fact many times on this thread, and even Robert backs me up on this, but still you persist with your unsupported assertions and now claim “some people want to ignore” them.

So I think you should present evidence for these assertions you have repeatedly made—or stop making them and accept they are baseless.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2013 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 795 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 02 December 2013 01:19 AM

When I tell you to submit your analysis, I mean submit it for scientific peer review.

Can you possibly backpedal any harder? You might have to if you can’t show that the NIST WTC 7 report was itself submitted for genuine (ie independent) scientific peer review. grin

[ Edited: 02 December 2013 08:59 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
   
53 of 91
53