ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 9th April 2007, 11:54 PM   #1881
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Lashl, seeing as he will be too lazy to check back within the thread to questions he has ignored and left unanswered, may i suggest that you post these questions again, as a list and repeat that list until each question is answered?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 01:54 AM   #1882
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.
I have backed up all three statements with quotes and page references.
Since it is obvious from your remarks that you have not read the statements yet, i will provide them for you again.

Pease read them.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 02:15 AM   #1883
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendix L pg 18

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."

[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 40 to 60 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

"... the atrium glass was still intact"

FEMA Report pg 20

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors....."

NIST ignored the two statements on the same page that were in conflict with the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face' and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 02:21 AM   #1884
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event* that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

*NIST Apx. L pg 30 - 33

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/133...ngeventli5.png


References:

NIST Appendix L
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]


Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage starting at roof level....5 to 10 floors....near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- No heavt debris in lobby area [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage...of core framing is not known [NIST Apx. L pg 51]

- Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [NIST Apx. L pg 18]


Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...c7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9...alysiscyk0.jpg


Looking from the south east corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on the 12th floor on the south face;
the face above the fire was covered with smoke [NIST Apx. L pg 24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered with smoke]

No debris damage to the east 1/3 of the south face was reported

Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 [Spak#] to damage core columns in the area of the initiating event.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3...raphic3np6.jpg

************************************************** ******

Fires:

There were no diesel fuel fed fires in the east half of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.

FEMA pg 28
[bolding mine]

Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double wall pipe.
A portion of the piping was in close proximity to Truss 1
However, there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.

The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.
Assume that the distribution piping system was severed.....

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building. [FEMA pg 14 - 15]

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open. [FEMA pg 29]

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/937/e5pt8.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

************************************************** ******

Fire on floor 12

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6500/n5pq6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/233...6474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oid=1548030539


Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
About 12:15 p.m.: Fire on floor 7 at west wall, toward the south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

[NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26]

************************************************** ******

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

Last edited by Darat; 12th April 2007 at 12:05 AM. Reason: Link fixed as per Member's request
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 02:51 AM   #1885
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
According to NIST, the debris damage in the west half of WTC 7 was not a factor in the initiating event.

NIST Apx. L pg 36:
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

NIST makes no mention of lateral stress in its Summary, or anywhere else for that matter.
The rest of the L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios talks about fires.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 04:37 AM   #1886
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,680
What is this nonsense about an initiating event? We have a long row of causes and effects. Where does it start? When OBL was born? When the planes hit the towers? When the debris hit WTC7? When the fire started? When the crucial support failed?

Why does it matter what somebody calls initiating? Which parts of the chain of events do you call in doubt?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 04:45 AM   #1887
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post so i'll just summarize.
How convenient.

Quote:
The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Only if you assume that said evidence exists.

Quote:
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
No it wouldn't have; because no matter how much 7 WTC steel we'd have showing NO traces of explosives, you'd still be trumpeting your theory despite the evidence.

Quote:
It is possible that the hole went from the roof to the ground but it would be wrong to assume that it did.
Just for the sake of argument, would you say that this possibility is more likely than its opposite ?

Quote:
Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?
I'll just repeat myself, then:

Quote:
You seem to think that "initiating event" means the first thing that led to the collapse. The way I see it, it means the first EVENT of the collapse. Otherwise we can go back to the 767 that hit 1 WTC as the initiating event... or maybe the Big Bang.

Since the damage to 7 WTC was caused by 1 WTC's collapse, and since the fires in 7 WTC were certainly caused by said damage, I don't see your problem with it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 04:47 AM   #1888
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
What do you say?
I say I should've read your post first...
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 04:49 AM   #1889
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Specifically:

[b] No gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32.
See post #94
Indeed. Now we have good evidence for a 47-storey hole, instead.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 04:50 AM   #1890
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
What is this nonsense about an initiating event? We have a long row of causes and effects. Where does it start? When OBL was born? When the planes hit the towers? When the debris hit WTC7? When the fire started? When the crucial support failed?
I went for the big bang. Still no answer, though.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 05:30 PM   #1891
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
What is this nonsense about an initiating event? We have a long row of causes and effects. Where does it start? When OBL was born? When the planes hit the towers? When the debris hit WTC7? When the fire started? When the crucial support failed?

Why does it matter what somebody calls initiating? Which parts of the chain of events do you call in doubt?

Hans

Attention Mod team:
someone has redirected my link to this graphic in post #1884
It now goes to a porn site.
Please correct this


Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 06:54 PM   #1892
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Belz: Regarding your response in post #1887
You left off the last line of my statement and missed the point.

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

Examination of the physical evidence in the only way to know for sure what happened and why.
NIST has been asked to determine the cause without the physical evidence.
This is like trying to determine what caused a plane crash by talking to witnesses and reviewing documents.



You seem to think that the initiating event is my creation.
Please take the time to read NIST Apx. L pg 30 - 33 where they define what they call the initiating event.

Last edited by Christopher7; 10th April 2007 at 06:59 PM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 07:27 PM   #1893
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
To reiterate:

Originally Posted by Christopher7
<snip>I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post
Originally Posted by LashL
I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?

Originally Posted by Arus808
see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.

do we have to continue this dance for another 50 pages?
Originally Posted by LashL
No, we certainly do not (and kudos to you for not quoting his most recent nonsense and thereby giving it any prevalence [corrected typo], which is what he's really after). We have the option of ignoring his attempts to avoid the legitimate questions and posts that he has so studiously tried to avoid and we have the option to just keep pointing him back to(previous post linked)

And we have the option to ignore his attempts to try to draw people into subsequent discussions of his own (illegitimate) framing until he responds to the numerous posts he has deliberately ignored above.

I would really like to see that happen. I would really like to see skeptics here ignore his ridiculous attempts to draw them into his lame attempts at goal post shifting and nonsense, and instead insist that he respond meaningfully to the posts that he has deliberately tried to skate away from, before engaging him in any more of his flights of fancy.
Christopher7 says that he has not had enough time to respond to all of the posts and points that he has avoided and/or ignored above.

I suggest that in order to give him all the time he needs, posters refrain from posting additional posts or responses or queries on this thread until he has taken the necessary time to address the points and posts that he has not yet "had time" to respond to.

I suspect that it is the only way that he will ever respond to them instead of just repeating his "rinse, lather, repeat" mantra, and I, for one, would really like to see Christopher7 given all the time he requires to respond meaningfully to the posts and points above.

P.S. Thank you, Arus, FactCheck, and Belz, and thanks in advance to others

Last edited by LashL; 10th April 2007 at 07:31 PM. Reason: to fix quote boxes
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 07:56 PM   #1894
FactCheck
Muse
 
FactCheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 619
Quote:
The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

Examination of the physical evidence in the only way to know for sure what happened and why.
NIST has been asked to determine the cause without the physical evidence.
This is like trying to determine what caused a plane crash by talking to witnesses and reviewing documents.
That's is a PURE lie.

Quote:
"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures." -Dr. W. Gene Corley, head of the WTC Building Performance Assessment Team

Now why don't you do ORIGINAL research as I have and find out who sold the steel. It wasn't the federal government. Not only did they not have anything to do with it but the mayor asked the scrap yards not to sell it. It was local greed that sold the majority of steel. Elliot Spitser was also pressuring the state to remove the steel because the town of fresh kills thought it was a health hazard. How does that fit in with your little federal conspiracy... Elliot Spitser is in on it? The state of NY? The city? Boy this conspiracy is MASSIVE! I think Chis is the only one not involved. Heh!
__________________
"Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!" - Groucho Marks
"The A.D.L. is the scum of the earth."... "You aren't going to use that last line out of context, are you?" - Alex Jones
http://www.debunking911.com Try the new POWER Debunker search engine!
http://www.jod911.com
FactCheck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 08:17 PM   #1895
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by FactCheck View Post
That's is a PURE lie.
Hogwash

Quote:
Now why don't you do ORIGINAL research as I have and find out who sold the steel. It wasn't the federal government. Not only did they not have anything to do with it but the mayor asked the scrap yards not to sell it. It was local greed that sold the majority of steel. Elliot Spitser was also pressuring the state to remove the steel because the town of fresh kills thought it was a health hazard. How does that fit in with your little federal conspiracy... Elliot Spitser is in on it? The state of NY? The city? Boy this conspiracy is MASSIVE! I think Chis is the only one not involved. Heh!
Bottom line, the physical evidence was destroyed.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 08:44 PM   #1896
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
Lashl, seeing as he will be too lazy to check back within the thread to questions he has ignored and left unanswered, may i suggest that you post these questions again, as a list and repeat that list until each question is answered?
That is a good suggestion, Arus, but I do not wish to do his work for him, as that is exactly what tinhatters expect all of the time. They post nonsense and expect everyone else to do their work for them while they run and hide from doing any work themselves. In this case, it is a simple matter of him scrolling back and locating posts to which he has not responded - it doesn't even involve any intelligence or research on his part (good thing) - so I do not think that this is effort that he should be absolved of. He knows exactly which points and points he's avoided and ignored. (And he knows why - as does everyone else reading this thread - it is because he hasn't any legitimate responses to them.)

Moreover, even if I (or others) were to do his work for him, as usual, he will just ignore it - again, in typical tinhatter fashion - as long as others are responding to his repetitive blather and as long as he has some excuse to continue to blather without addressing the points and posts that he has deliberately avoided.

I would much rather see skeptics here ignore his further posts until he responds meaningfully to the ones that he has deliberately ignored and avoided, and I would much rather see skeptics here require him to actually do more than spout off the same "rinse, lather, repeat" nonsense that he has been spouting for dozens of pages now.

He is, obviously, hoping that posters here will engage him in further discussion on his "rinse, lather, repeat" points and hopes that posters will forget that he has avoided all of the points and posts that he is unable to respond to in a meaningful fashion.

He needs time, he says.

I say we should give him all the time he needs, and not detract from his time by posting further responses to his blather until he has had sufficient time to respond to the posts he's studiously avoided and ignored above.

For reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1875

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1879

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1880

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1893

Last edited by LashL; 10th April 2007 at 08:49 PM. Reason: To add links
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 08:46 PM   #1897
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Christopher7 says that he has not had enough time to respond to all of the posts and points that he has avoided and/or ignored above.
There were 12 posts containing 40 points. [more or less]

You desire to ignore the and bury the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports that i have listed by asking infinitely arguable questions.

I have the right to respond to relevant posts and ignore the insults, misrepresentations of what i said, questions that have already been asked and answered and the nitpick and babble tactic.

You refuse to acknowledge the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports in posts #1883, 1884 and 1885

You and others fail to respond to points you cannot deal with in my posts and then insist that i respond to every point in your posts.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 08:57 PM   #1898
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
Wrong again, Chris. Nobody insisted that you reply to every point in every post. There's that reading comprehension problem of yours again.

Take all the time you need to respond to the points and posts that you deliberately ignored and avoided above - you know which ones I mean, the ones that are obviously relevant to the discussion but that you have chosen to pretend are not. You claimed that you just didn't have the time to respond ~ so go ahead ~ take all the time you require. Even if it is only to claim that a particular point or post is "irrelevant" in your view - that itself will be a response on your part (perhaps legitimate, perhaps not) but at least it may provide a basis for further discussion. To simply ignore and avoid obviously relevant posts and points just makes you look bad, and that is what you have been doing for several pages now.

Every time you find yourself confronted with a relevant point that you either know nothing about or you are wilfully blind to, and that you completely unwilling to research for yourself, you pretend that it is "irrelevant" even though it is clearly relevant, or you simply ignore it and hope that others will engage you in the same old tired crap that you have been repeating for dozens of pages.

So, instead of that, take the time you need, do the research required, and respond meaningfully instead of sticking to a "rinse, lather, repeat" mantra.

Take all the time you need.

I (and I am sure others) will address the rest of your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

Last edited by LashL; 10th April 2007 at 09:05 PM. Reason: Additions
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 09:25 PM   #1899
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
I went over the 12 posts in question.
I have responded to the relevant questions.
Here is my response to one of your statements.
If you think there is another statement or relevant question that deserves a response, please say what it is.

Originally Posted by LashL View Post
You keep saying that, as though by repetition you can cause it to be true. It doesn't work that way, and you are not qualified to make that determination, in any event, no matter how many times you repeat it.
I did not make that determination, NIST did.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 09:41 PM   #1900
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
Like I said:

Quote:
That is a good suggestion, Arus, but I do not wish to do his work for him, as that is exactly what tinhatters expect all of the time. They post nonsense and expect everyone else to do their work for them while they run and hide from doing any work themselves. In this case, it is a simple matter of him scrolling back and locating posts to which he has not responded - it doesn't even involve any intelligence or research on his part (good thing) - so I do not think that this is effort that he should be absolved of. He knows exactly which points and points he's avoided and ignored. (And he knows why - as does everyone else reading this thread - it is because he hasn't any legitimate responses to them.)

Moreover, even if I (or others) were to do his work for him, as usual, he will just ignore it - again, in typical tinhatter fashion - as long as others are responding to his repetitive blather and as long as he has some excuse to continue to blather without addressing the points and posts that he has deliberately avoided.

I would much rather see skeptics here ignore his further posts until he responds meaningfully to the ones that he has deliberately ignored and avoided, and I would much rather see skeptics here require him to actually do more than spout off the same "rinse, lather, repeat" nonsense that he has been spouting for dozens of pages now.

He is, obviously, hoping that posters here will engage him in further discussion on his "rinse, lather, repeat" points and hopes that posters will forget that he has avoided all of the points and posts that he is unable to respond to in a meaningful fashion.

He needs time, he says.

I say we should give him all the time he needs, and not detract from his time by posting further responses to his blather until he has had sufficient time to respond to the posts he's studiously avoided and ignored above.

For reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1875

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1879

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1880

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1893


And

Quote:
Wrong again, Chris. Nobody insisted that you reply to every point in every post. There's that reading comprehension problem of yours again.

Take all the time you need to respond to the points and posts that you deliberately ignored and avoided above - you know which ones I mean, the ones that are obviously relevant to the discussion but that you have chosen to pretend are not. You claimed that you just didn't have the time to respond ~ so go ahead ~ take all the time you require. Even if it is only to claim that a particular point or post is "irrelevant" in your view - that itself will be a response on your part (perhaps legitimate, perhaps not) but at least it may provide a basis for further discussion. To simply ignore and avoid obviously relevant posts and points just makes you look bad, and that is what you have been doing for several pages now.

Every time you find yourself confronted with a relevant point that you either know nothing about or you are wilfully blind to, and that you completely unwilling to research for yourself, you pretend that it is "irrelevant" even though it is clearly relevant, or you simply ignore it and hope that others will engage you in the same old tired crap that you have been repeating for dozens of pages.

So, instead of that, take the time you need, do the research required, and respond meaningfully instead of sticking to a "rinse, lather, repeat" mantra.

Take all the time you need.

I (and I am sure others) will address the rest of your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.
Take all the time you need.

We will be here when you have taken the time to do the necessary research, and when you have taken the time to educate yourself, and when you have taken the time to respond meaningfully to the posts and points that you have ignored and avoided above.

Until then, I see no reason to respond to your repetitive posts in which you simply reiterate that which you have said dozens of times before, and which have been addressed dozens of times already in this thread.

Start responding meaningfully to other posters instead of just repeating yourself ad nauseam and instead of ignoring legitimate comments and queries.

After all, you're interested in the truth, right? You won't find it by repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over, without doing some actual research and legwork. You've been given the tools to do so on this thread, yet you ignore those, too.

Anyway, as I said, I (and I am sure others) will address the rest of your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 09:45 PM   #1901
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
Actually, I probably should not have posted that lengthy response to your lame post, Christopher7, because I put more effort into it than you have into your posts.

The following would have been a more appropriate response, and one which I think is the only appropriate answer to your posts until you respond meaningfully to the posts and points that you have deliberately avoided and ignored above:

I (and I am sure others) will address your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

Edit to add:
Oh, I see that this post started a new page (#39 on my screen as my settings allow 50 posts per page and this is post #1901, apparently) so I guess I should post these references for those who land on this page without seeing the history:

For reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1875

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1879

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1880

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1893

Once again, I (and I am sure others) will address your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding above for days.

Last edited by LashL; 10th April 2007 at 09:51 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 11:55 PM   #1902
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Actually, I probably should not have posted that lengthy response to your lame post, Christopher7, because I put more effort into it than you have into your posts.
You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.

No one has responded to posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

Instead you fill up the page with your endless demands because you cannot accept or challenge the truth of what is in the FEMA and NIST reports.

I am not going to respond to your demands again.

They are just a blatent attempt to avoid the summary of what i have established in this thread based on statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Last edited by Christopher7; 11th April 2007 at 12:01 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 05:46 AM   #1903
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No one has responded to posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.
I am essentially in agreement with these three posts, based on FEMA and NIST's preliminary reports. My main disagreement, which I consider a nit-pick, is with your conclusion in post #1885:

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
According to NIST, the debris damage in the west half of WTC 7 was not a factor in the initiating event.

NIST Apx. L pg 36:
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

NIST makes no mention of lateral stress in its Summary, or anywhere else for that matter.
The rest of the L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios talks about fires.
NIST does not conclude that the damage was not a factor in the initiating event. You are making an unwarranted extrapolation. It's true that NIST does not factor the damage into their initiating event hypothesis. That is very different from concluding that it was not a factor.

NIST did the appropriate thing: given that the nature of the damage was uncertain based on the known data, and given that any part the damage may have played in the initiating event would be (according to their hypothesis) eclipsed by the primary cause of heat-induced failure, they chose to exclude the damage from their analysis of the initiating event altogether.

---------------------------------

All that being said, and even if we ignore my nit-pick and accept these three posts as stated, what exactly is your point?

Engineers, architects, builders, regulators, steel-workers and -manufacturers, firemen, materials scientists, fire suppression and abatement researchers and manufacturers, etc. are all concerned with the possibility of fire-induced collapse of steel-framed structures. They all know it can, and occasionally does, happen. So why does NIST's hypothesis that WTC7's collapse was primarily a fire-induced failure strike you as so improbable, especially given all the concern that was expressed by knowledgable people at the scene?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 09:09 AM   #1904
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
Again, not necessarily TO YOU, because no matter what evidence is present or lacking, you don't adjust your views and beliefs.

Quote:
If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.
Perhaps, but the whole problem here is the assumption that something is afoot. Namely, that the extensive damage seen to 7 WTC, particularily the colossal hole we see in the south face and the subsequent fires, could not have caused the collapse's initiating event because it happened in a different area of the building. Doesn't it strike you as telling that building experts don't find this odd at all ?

Quote:
You seem to think that the initiating event is my creation.
No. I think you've hijacked the term to mean something subtly different in order to prove your point.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 09:14 AM   #1905
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Originally Posted by Factcheck
That's is a PURE lie.
Hogwash
Nonsense.

Quote:
Bottom line, the physical evidence was destroyed.
So it is after every investigation. The bottom line IS that NIST HAD access to it.

Quote:
You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.
Spamming ? Like this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1884

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1602

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1282

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1082

Etc... ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 11th April 2007 at 09:17 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 12:30 PM   #1906
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
I am essentially in agreement with these three posts, based on FEMA and NIST's preliminary reports.
Thank you

Quote:
My main disagreement, which I consider a nit-pick, is with your conclusion in post #1885:

NIST does not conclude that the damage was not a factor in the initiating event. You are making an unwarranted extrapolation. It's true that NIST does not factor the damage into their initiating event hypothesis. That is very different from concluding that it was not a factor.

NIST did the appropriate thing: given that the nature of the damage was uncertain based on the known data, and given that any part the damage may have played in the initiating event would be (according to their hypothesis) eclipsed by the primary cause of heat-induced failure, they chose to exclude the damage from their analysis of the initiating event altogether.
The only part of the damage that they included in their scenario was the 'possible' damage to the core columns.
They ruled out the possibility that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was the primary cause of the initiating event.
Since they left no stone unturned in their attempt to prove that debris damage and fire caused the collapse, they would have included the south west damage in their scenario if they thought it was a factor in the initiating event.
---------------------------------

Quote:
All that being said, and even if we ignore my nit-pick and accept these three posts as stated, what exactly is your point?
OT'ers have repeatedly stated that diesel fuel fires and debris damage caused the collapse of WTC 7.
After debating here and re-reading parts of the FEMA and NIST reports to check on certain facts, i discovered that there is no evidence to support these claims.
The extent of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the 'final' report.
The recently discovered damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was far from the initiating event and will not change the analysis that has already been done.

pg 36
"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas"

Quote:
Engineers, architects, builders, regulators, steel-workers and -manufacturers, firemen, materials scientists, fire suppression and abatement researchers and manufacturers, etc. are all concerned with the possibility of fire-induced collapse of steel-framed structures. They all know it can, and occasionally does, happen. So why does NIST's hypothesis that WTC7's collapse was primarily a fire-induced failure strike you as so improbable, especially given all the concern that was expressed by knowledgable people at the scene?
There are no cases where there has been a collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building because of fire.
The Windsor Tower cannot be use as an example because the support columns were reinforced concrete. The exterior columns of the top 10 stories were light weight [1/4 inch thick] box beams.
This is entirely different from 'all steel' frame high rise buildings.

The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 12:56 PM   #1907
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.
BS. That is total conjecture meant to hand wave away serious flaws in your theory. I noticed your single quotes around the world knowledgeable, as if you are implying perhaps they were not 'really' knowledgeable as well.

You use the same arguments over and over and over and over again, as if you expect to suddenly become right after the 354th time. But, even on the 355th time, your argument remains simple biased conjecture based on gut feeling, raw ideology, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts.

Believe me, you are having your butt handed to you in this debate, and I say that with all due respect.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 01:27 PM   #1908
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
BS. That is total conjecture meant to hand wave away serious flaws in your theory.
What i have presented is not a theory, it is a list of facts from the FEMA and NIST reports

Quote:
I noticed your single quotes around the world knowledgeable, as if you are implying perhaps they were not 'really' knowledgeable as well.
Wrong
chipmunk stew referred to the fire chiefs as knowledgeable rather than experts as many have. [indicating that they had degrees in engineering]
My intent was to point this out, no offence intended.

Quote:
You use the same arguments over and over and over and over again, as if you expect to suddenly become right after the 354th time. But, even on the 355th time, your argument remains simple biased conjecture based on gut feeling, raw ideology, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts.
Wrong
My summary is a list of facts.

chipmunk stew is a serious debater, you are not.

He addressed the issue directly, you chose to ignore the issue and criticize the use of quotes.

ETA: Belz, gotta go now. I'll get to your post later.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 02:31 PM   #1909
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thank you

The only part of the damage that they included in their scenario was the 'possible' damage to the core columns.
They ruled out the possibility that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was the primary cause of the initiating event.
Since they left no stone unturned in their attempt to prove that debris damage and fire caused the collapse, they would have included the south west damage in their scenario if they thought it was a factor in the initiating event.
Clearly, they did leave stones unturned, which is why they issued a PRELIMINARY report. They were not satisfied that the analysis was complete. You are correct in saying that they ruled out the SW damage as the PRIMARY cause of the initiating event. You are incorrect in presuming that they have ruled it out as a factor.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
OT'ers have repeatedly stated that diesel fuel fires and debris damage caused the collapse of WTC 7.
Really? Diesel fuel fires? The hypothesis I've heard most often is that of NIST's, which implicates ordinary combustibles. I call straw man.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
After debating here and re-reading parts of the FEMA and NIST reports to check on certain facts, i discovered that there is no evidence to support these claims.
The extent of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the 'final' report.
The recently discovered damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was far from the initiating event and will not change the analysis that has already been done.
Perhaps, but I think you're being presumptuous. Unless you've seen a draft of the final report.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
pg 36
"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas"
What does this quote mean to you? If the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed, that means other, intact parts of the structure picked up the loads. What point are you trying to make with this quote?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
There are no cases where there has been a collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building because of fire.
That's because designers, engineers, and builders are very keen on making sure their buildings remain standing under all likely scenarios. Designers assume that their buildings are going to experience a large fire at some point during the life of the building. It's their job to make sure that the building doesn't fall down under such a scenario.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The Windsor Tower cannot be use as an example because the support columns were reinforced concrete. The exterior columns of the top 10 stories were light weight [1/4 inch thick] box beams.

This is entirely different from 'all steel' frame high rise buildings.
It is of very different construction, and I think trying to do one-to-one comparisons between buildings is fruitless and uninformative. But the Windsor Tower example does show the destructive potential of fire on steel structures.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.
Total bollocks. The same concern was present during the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991:

Quote:
After the loss of three personnel, hours of unsuccessful attack on
the fire, with several floors simultaneously involved in fire, and a risk of
structural collapse
, the Incident Commander withdrew all personnel from
the building due to the uncontrollable risk factors. The fire ultimately
spread up to the 30th floor where it was stopped by ten automatic
sprinklers.
(my bolding)
[Source: see page 4]

Look at the pictures at the end of the document to see how close this thing was to collapsing.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 07:47 PM   #1910
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.
I am not "spamming" this thread with "demands" at all. I am merely suggesting that your repetitive rinse, lather, repeat nonsense not be addressed over and over again while you continue to ignore legitimate posts and points.

Quote:
Instead you fill up the page with your endless demands because you cannot accept or challenge the truth of what is in the FEMA and NIST reports.
Again, I have made no demands. Stop being such a drama queen.

I have no problem accepting the truth, unlike members of the inaptly named "truth movement", and I have no problem whatsoever with challenges to the contents of the NIST or FEMA reports.
Again, stop being such a drama queen.

Quote:
I am not going to respond to your demands again.
You mean that you are not going to respond to legitimate posts and points because you cannot. That is obvious, and that is exactly the point of my previous post.

Again, I have made no demands and, again, you have not responded to the legitimate posts and points above.

Quote:
They are just a blatent attempt to avoid the summary of what i have established in this thread based on statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.
No, my point is clear. It is to suggest that your rinse, lather, repeat posts need not be addressed over and over and over again, unless and until you are willing to address legitimate posts and points. So far, you have refused to do so and you continue to whine about being asked questions or being asked to address points that do not fit within the confines of your artificially narrow definition of events and reality.

I (and I am sure others) will address your repetitive posts (again) once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

For reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1875

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1879

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1880

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1893

Last edited by LashL; 11th April 2007 at 07:52 PM. Reason: to fix formatting
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 09:10 PM   #1911
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So it is after every investigation. The bottom line IS that NIST HAD access to it.
NISTNCSTAR1-3B Draft pg 5 on page counter
The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual material from the structure

NCSTAR3-1 Executive Summary PG 2
the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature because no steel from the building was recovered.


Quote:
There is a major difference between posing the same demand 6 times on 1 page and posting a summary 5 times in 7 weeks.

Post #1602 was a revised version and posts #1883, 1884 and 1885 brought all 3 summaries together.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 09:14 AM   #1912
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
NISTNCSTAR1-3B Draft pg 5 on page counter
The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual material from the structure

NCSTAR3-1 Executive Summary PG 2
the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature because no steel from the building was recovered.
That's not what your previous quote said.

Quote:
There is a major difference between posing the same demand 6 times on 1 page and posting a summary 5 times in 7 weeks.
Yes, indeed. The differences are that they are pointed at you, and that their posts have not been adressed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 02:51 PM   #1913
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Clearly, they did leave stones unturned, which is why they issued a PRELIMINARY report. They were not satisfied that the analysis was complete. You are correct in saying that they ruled out the SW damage as the PRIMARY cause of the initiating event. You are incorrect in presuming that they have ruled it out as a factor.
I disagree. If they thought it was a factor, they would have included it in their scenario IMO.

Quote:
Really? Diesel fuel fires? The hypothesis I've heard most often is that of NIST's, which implicates ordinary combustibles. I call straw man.
I went back over this thread and you are right.
Although some imply that the diesel fuel fires were involved in the collapse, none said that they were.
However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.
In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I would add to that:
A 4" pipe is much stronger than a 2 1/2" pipe and a double wall pipe is much stronger than a single wall pipe. The single wall pipe connections in the east part of WTC 7, closer to the impact zone, would have broken before the double wall pipe at the other end of the building.

Quote:
Perhaps, but I think you're being presumptuous. Unless you've seen a draft of the final report.
We disagree on this point. The final report will be out soon and, i hope, settle the issue.

Quote:
What does this quote mean to you? If the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed, that means other, intact parts of the structure picked up the loads. What point are you trying to make with this quote?
The loads would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, not to the other end of the building.

Quote:
That's because designers, engineers, and builders are very keen on making sure their buildings remain standing under all likely scenarios. Designers assume that their buildings are going to experience a large fire at some point during the life of the building. It's their job to make sure that the building doesn't fall down under such a scenario.
Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.

Quote:
It is of very different construction, and I think trying to do one-to-one comparisons between buildings is fruitless and uninformative. But the Windsor Tower example does show the destructive potential of fire on steel structures.
The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for many hours after firefighting efforts were abandoned.
Some floor support beams sagged as much as 3 feet but they did not collapse.

"the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

pg 24
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 04:17 PM   #1914
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I disagree. If they thought it was a factor, they would have included it in their scenario IMO.

I went back over this thread and you are right.
Although some imply that the diesel fuel fires were involved in the collapse, none said that they were.
However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.
In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I would add to that:
A 4" pipe is much stronger than a 2 1/2" pipe and a double wall pipe is much stronger than a single wall pipe. The single wall pipe connections in the east part of WTC 7, closer to the impact zone, would have broken before the double wall pipe at the other end of the building.

We disagree on this point. The final report will be out soon and, i hope, settle the issue.

The loads would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, not to the other end of the building.

Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.
It's not just redundancy. It's passive and active fire suppression, firewalling, and firefighting operations, all of which were compromised in building 7 on 9/11.

Quote:
The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for many hours after firefighting efforts were abandoned.
Some floor support beams sagged as much as 3 feet but they did not collapse.

"the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

pg 24
Yes, I know it didn't collapse. BUT EVERY KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE, WHICH MEANS THAT STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISES CAN COLLAPSE FROM FIRE.

NIST's hypothesis is entirely plausible according to every single person who has experience working with fire and steel structures. Your implication that it is not plausible is entirely without merit.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th April 2007, 04:35 AM   #1915
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.
Not so it "WON'T" collapse, but so the chances of it collapsing are minimised.

Also, 7 WTC, as you remember, also sustained structural damage, the extent of which is unknown at this time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th April 2007, 05:03 AM   #1916
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
It's not just redundancy. It's passive and active fire suppression, firewalling, and firefighting operations, all of which were compromised in building 7 on 9/11.
The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

There was no active fire supression [sprinklers] in WTC 7.


There were no sprinklers on the floors that burned in the Meridian Tower.
When the fire got to the 30th floor, the sprinklers there put the fire out.

Due to inadequate water pressure,

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

The columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

Quote:
Yes, I know it didn't collapse. BUT EVERY KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE, WHICH MEANS THAT STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISES CAN COLLAPSE FROM FIRE.
It was not in danger of collapsing.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

Quote:
NIST's hypothesis is entirely plausible according to every single personwho has experience working with fire and steel structures. Your implication that it is not plausible is entirely without merit.
Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th April 2007, 09:35 AM   #1917
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Quote:
It was not in danger of collapsing.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.
Good. Then you'll agree that someone who thinks it was not in danger of collapsing does not make it so.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th April 2007, 09:39 AM   #1918
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?
Frankly, I find your sweeping statements about things you have absolutely no qualifications for or expertise in to be pretty bold too.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th April 2007, 10:41 AM   #1919
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

There was no active fire supression [sprinklers] in WTC 7.

There were no sprinklers on the floors that burned in the Meridian Tower.
When the fire got to the 30th floor, the sprinklers there put the fire out.

Due to inadequate water pressure,
The water pressure problem only applied to the internal firefighting effort.
The fires were continuously fought externally, beginning when the fire was still confined to the 22nd floor.

Quote:
the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

The columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

It was not in danger of collapsing.
It was. If any one of the floors supported by those sagging, twisting beams and girders had collapsed, it would have seriously threatened the ability of the columns to continue to support their loads.

Quote:
Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?
I apologize for the hyperbole. I'd be willing to wager a hefty sum that they're in near-unanimous agreement, though.

The fact is, your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, which is not enough to dismiss the hypothesis developed by NIST.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th April 2007, 10:53 AM   #1920
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.
The WTC tragedy has brought a major problem to the forefront -- fireproofing is often not installed correctly, or simply doesn't perform as it should.

Quote:

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

[b]Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

How much mass did these beams and girders support? More than forty stories? Where they the ONLY means of support?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.