NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7

For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: London, England

Post by Alex_V »

Does this look like damage caused by falling debris? Nope, it’s too neat, too clean, and too ‘all-the-way-down’. Falling debris doesn’t cause damage like this, nor does explosives.
Total speculation. Which expert is telling us what this does or doesn't look like? What a load of nonsense.
The fact that much of WTC 1 and 2 was vaporized and is not is it’s own rubble is also a factor in this assumption...
Erm... credibility is out of the window here. An assumption based on such ludicrous speculation isn't even worth considering.
...it is a widely accepted fact among researchers that the videos of the two ‘plane hits’ have been altered and computer generated along with the backgrounds and foregrounds of the city scape on 9/11.
Erm... no it isn't. Argument over.
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

Post by scubadiver »

Flour factory in Turkey rolls upside down as a consequence of badly managed controlled demolition!

Falls into the path of least resistance!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7z-FQUrfhc[/youtube]
Currently working on a new website
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

They should have thrown a few Molotov cocktails through some windows. That would have done the trick....
:lol:
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

Post by scubadiver »

Typhoon topples hotel in Taiwan:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjw-DPFiCI8[/youtube]
Currently working on a new website
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

scubadiver wrote:Typhoon topples hotel in Taiwan:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjw-DPFiCI8[/youtube]

So Judy (Hurricane Erin) Wood was right after all!

:lol:
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

Post by scubadiver »

Controlled demolition in China. Looks familiar...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c[/youtube]
Currently working on a new website
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

scubadiver wrote:Controlled demolition in China. Looks familiar...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c[/youtube]
Not really, and sounds very different but enjoy the fact you have found daming proof on youtube.
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

Wibble wrote:
scubadiver wrote:Controlled demolition in China. Looks familiar...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c[/youtube]
Not really, and sounds very different but enjoy the fact you have found daming proof on youtube.
I agree. At least controlled demolitions result in plenty of large chunks of concrete and rubble, whereas we all know (apart from you) that no such chunks were left when the two towers were blown up.
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

Post by scubadiver »

Conversation between Mr Gage and JFREF debunking director.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY[/youtube]
Currently working on a new website
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

As always he is all over the place.

He admits there was lots of smoke, but insists there was only a small fire. He ignores the limited, but no less real, footage of large flames round from the downwind side of WTC7. He insists that the fires were not very hot or there would be more flames. Now anyone who has ever used a Bunsen burner knows that is garbage and so on.

He also downplays the significance of the fireman not actually fighting the fire (and lack of sprinklers) and still insists "pull" is some secret code word for blowing up a building. Then some who insists that some how George Bush and co managed to precisely cut through 24 beams in milliseconds without explaining how or how the CD, wires, detonators etc survived the fire and then left no trace.

Useless.
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

Post by scubadiver »

NIST admits WTC7 fell in free fall acceleration for 2.5 seconds of its collapse.

I am not sure how any OCT supporter would say "that is expected" without the use of explosives.
Currently working on a new website
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

scubadiver wrote:NIST admits WTC7 fell in free fall acceleration for 2.5 seconds of its collapse.

I am not sure how any OCT supporter would say "that is expected" without the use of explosives.
NIST have explained how it fell, why it fell etc.

There was also no evidence of explosive nor an explanation of how all the explosives, wires etc were planted without anyone knowing. And, of course, how they hid all the wires etc afterwards, or how the wires, explosives etc survived the fire and so on.
James Allen
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7

Post by James Allen »

KP50 wrote:
Alex_V wrote:
KP50 wrote:Why fire couldn't initiate such a collapse? Are you serious? Freefall means that all the support has been removed - simultaneously. That isn't possible with fire which is, by its nature, rather random in its effects. Freefall for 2.5 seconds means many, many supports have to have disappeared. Do you get it yet?

CD hypothesis fits the data much better because it looks like a building being demolished. Now where's your data to show that collapse from a fire can look like that?
NIST's report suggests that very thing. Anyone who has a serious grievance with it is welcome to criticise, but I think taking pot-shots on internet forums or youtube is not really going to cut it in the real world, where professionals with proper credentials actually work with facts.

If the truth movement plans to offer any significant criticism of NIST's report and submit it to the rigour of examination by the structural engineering community, then I welcome that development. After years of whinging on internet sites, and producing next to nothing of any significance whatsoever, I won't be holding my breath.

But there's the nub of the problem. The truth movement, in it's arrogance, keeps proclaiming 'the argument is already won', despite having done nothing of any significance to prove this. And then they wonder why they are ignored.
What do you think though Alex? You bang on and on like a broken record about professionals and science and the consensus of the scientific community but what do you think? Or do you actually think at all? I've seen no signs of it yet but I live in hope. It isn't that hard to work out, is it? You know what fire can do to steel? And that WTC7 looked like a demolition. Explain to me how fire can imitate demolition because frankly, I think it is impossible.

Even if you set fires in a large tower and tried to co-ordinate them so that key support columns all reached "melting point" at the same time (having of course set the conditions of forcing air onto the fire to reach such a temperature) I still think it is impossible to replicate the free fall of a demolition. The fact that NIST has a computer model proves absolutely nothing other than that they have a computer model.
KP50 first of all you make a big error when you say "replicate the free fall of a demolition" free fall is not a feature of a controlled demolition of a building, so the idea that because there was free fall, means it was a CD is rubbish, as demonstrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8yUR-sM4lU

Your other mistake is this: "And that WTC7 looked like a demolition. Explain to me how fire can imitate demolition because frankly, I think it is impossible." the ONLY similarity is that they were both gravity driven collapses, everything else is different. The lack of explosions and flashes, how the collapse started (east penthouse), the building falling outside of it's own footprint, an severely damaging 2 other buildings.
Truthers like to claim a uniform symmetrical collapse that looks nothing like the NIST model, however when evidence comes out to the contrary, it is ignored, and they carry on repeating what is proven wrong! In this video, the left hand side is clearly folding in, and there are no charges, or thermite - both would have been visible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlyFlDSscRQ
User avatar
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:58 pm

Re: NIST tries to explain away the speed of WTC7

Post by scienceplease 2 »

James Allen wrote:
KP50 first of all you make a big error when you say "replicate the free fall of a demolition" free fall is not a feature of a controlled demolition of a building, so the idea that because there was free fall, means it was a CD is rubbish, as demonstrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8yUR-sM4lU

Your other mistake is this: "And that WTC7 looked like a demolition. Explain to me how fire can imitate demolition because frankly, I think it is impossible." the ONLY similarity is that they were both gravity driven collapses, everything else is different. The lack of explosions and flashes, how the collapse started (east penthouse), the building falling outside of it's own footprint, an severely damaging 2 other buildings.
Truthers like to claim a uniform symmetrical collapse that looks nothing like the NIST model, however when evidence comes out to the contrary, it is ignored, and they carry on repeating what is proven wrong!
Hmm. I don't think this thread should end like this.

The first Youtube video is made by a guy that is deliberately setting out to say CD does not produce freefall and concentrates on an (interesting) video about a large demolition job in Texas which was brought down with care and standard explosives - the most economical way of doing things.

He makes the point that you "can't trick gravity".

I think I've already made the main points already:
- the texas demolition job was done with care
- the texas demolition job was done economically
- the texas demolition job was done with standard RDX explosives

cf WTC7
Assuming a CD conspiracy...
- WTC7 was most likely that it was supposed to fail at same time as South Tower collapse (hence Barry Jennings testimony, news reports of its collapse etc)
- Since it didn't come down at that point then the collapse was "hidden" - at least in the UK - live satellite coverage was cut minutes before the collapse and just after Jane Standley's famous announcement of its collapse
- Money was not an object in bringing down the building - hence it could have used exotic explosives (such as IH-135 or other energetic nano-composite) using radio controlled detonation devices.
- The collapse of WTC7 was symmetric where it mattered - it did not fall into the building either side. It was slightly screwed in the other axis - it did fall back into the debris of the south tower. Hence the (provable) claims that the tower collapse was symmetric.
- Pools of molten steel were found under WTC 1, 2 and 7. This molten metal is well reported and could even be seen coming from a corner of the South Tower.
- NIST has failed to explain or investigate these points. Instead it claims from a single scenario (a bomb attached to their magic beam - their supposed collapse point) that explosives could not have been used and back this by an assertion that a loud sound would have been heard. US Fireman's Fire Investigation handbook - their 101 - is that lack of explosive sounds should not preclude an investigation into "explosive or fire accelerants".
- NIST subsequently released videos (under FOIA) of the WTC7 collapse with the sound track removed!
- NIST will not release its computer models or data under FOIA (and states that there would be "a risk to public safety" to do so).

Freefall of WTC7 has yet to be explained.

You can't fool gravity unless you want to take the whole building into a Vomit Comet and drop out of the sky. That would make a good picture... :roll:

The support of the whole building had to have been simultaneously removed for more than 8 stories by some mechanism. There is no known natural mechanism to do this.

Hence it could have ONLY have been a man-made deliberate act to take this building down.

As a short hand, this is described as "Controlled Demolition"...

As Danny Jowenko would say "Absolutely"

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-secti ... wenko.html
James Allen
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 7:49 pm

@ scienceplease2

Post by James Allen »

Well of course over 1 million man hours were spent sifting through everything at fresh kills, and it turned up no evidence of explosives or incendiaries.
A professional metallurgist here in the UK has studied the thermitic materials paper, and found a whopper that Harrit et all missed that was in their own supplied data: The aluminum is bound in Kaolin rendering it inert, it cannot react, therefore it is not thermite of any kind. Kaolin is found in paint.

Freefall of WTC7 has yet to be explained.

WTC7 entered freefall for 2.25 seconds into it's collapse after 1 second of the facade collapsing, and way after the start of the collapse sequence - the penthouse falling through the building. So the building had already gone into complete failure when the (insert exotic never been used before in a CD incendiary here) went off to cause the free fall?

How about this as a much more plausible argument:
The shift of the load from east to west cased the remaining columns to buckle in rapid succession, explaining how there was some resistance for the first second of facade collapse. The internal collapse already underway cased a pull on the facade, and torque from the already collapsing interior could pull on the north facade giving the free fall measurement. (torque can cause faster than free fall to occur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE).


Of course no one knows exactly what happened within building 7, it is impossible to know - a point exploited by truthers, however my explanation is clearly the less ridiculous.
James Allen
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 7:49 pm

Molten stuff

Post by James Allen »

"- Pools of molten steel were found under WTC 1, 2 and 7. This molten metal is well reported and could even be seen coming from a corner of the South Tower. "

Big difference between molten metal, and molten steel, there are many problems with claiming it is molten steel though:

-There are loads of photos of the steel released by NIST from the recent FOIA request. all the photos show the steel how you would expect it to look, there are no signs of it having been melted.

-In the famous witness interview of the firefighters talking about molten steel, they claim it is running down channel rails, yet how are the channel rails unaffected by the steel? answer it's not molten steel, the channel rails would not maintain integrity, they would be molten too.

-In the exact position where the alleged molten steel was pouring from the south tower , was a UPS battery system containing a large amount of lead and copper, the same lead and copper that is in this electrical fire, watch the following video, and tell me if you can spot a similarity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdoiqmOH9_0
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6070
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

NYCCAN organises occupation of Building 7 this weekend, and it is streamed by 99% Movement:

http://occupybuilding7.org/
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Post Reply