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 wtc7

Closed Thread
Old 3rd October 2010, 07:53 PM   #281
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
One advantage I do have over you all is that I have actually read the report.
Once again a truther changing reality to fit whatever arguement they are having at the time.

If you have read the report then you would be capable of answering the question I have posed to you three times already and you have conveniently ignored:

What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with conclusions of the NIST report?
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 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 3rd October 2010, 07:56 PM   #282
Bullwinkle2009
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
Hi, I read the report and it says there were no blast events. It states fire caused the collapse.
Bullwinkle2009 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 3rd October 2010, 08:10 PM   #283
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
And? I am not disputing it was a large fire, but you agree it was an office fire. Nothing more.
Mount St. Helen's was a volcano. Nothing more.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was an ordinary, run-of the mill atomic bomb. Nothing more.
__________________
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
Old 3rd October 2010, 08:25 PM   #284
Bullwinkle2009
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
fire

Hi, It says thermal expansion nothing about melting or warping or failure of the steel. The steel in the floors expanded and broke their connections to the vertical causing floors to collapse/removing the support from the verticals causing their collapse causing the building to fall. All this began around your column 79
Seems pretty cut and dried. Although you played a little fast and loose with the verb-age. The report says other factors do not matter given that the fire would have caused the building to collapse. More then once it says the other damage was not considered because other then letting in the fires in the first place and cutting the water supply the damage did not lead to the collapse. Being simple minded I still feel like that was a major cause for the building falling down. Also the fuel did not melt the steel but it might have helped the fires spread. (seems like it was involved) Although they did recover 23,000 out of the 42,000 gal. By not causing the collapse the report means (I think) did not produce temps high enough/long enough to cause steel to fail.
OK so like they used to say "Wheres the beef"? what don't you like in the report. The mechanics are not what I expected but the end state "fire caused the collapse" remains unchanged

OH and the report states where something was not observed it was assumed not to have occured. Meaning it could have been hotter and damage from debris might have occured but since it was not observed and documented it was not factored in but still the building collapsed and the reasons understood. They looked for blast evidence but a blast was not required. (I think they covered all the bases)

Last edited by Bullwinkle2009; 3rd October 2010 at 08:31 PM.
Bullwinkle2009 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 3rd October 2010, 08:35 PM   #285
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
AH, so the cronies over at AE are using evidence and analysis provided BY NIST, to show NIST that they are wrong...wow...just wow!!!



Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
You think the fires burned for 7 hours in one location? Once the ordinary building content is burned up the fire moves on. It will only spemd 20 minutes in any one location.

The fires were ordinary office fires.

The fire on floor 12 was burned out well before it is meant to have caused the initiating event anyway.
20 minutes? really, so not 21, not 19, not 15, no 25...20 minutes.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 3rd October 2010, 08:40 PM   #286
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Frank Greening has already sent his concerns about the wtc7 report to NIST and they were ignored.

I have no expertise in building collapses but neither do most of the people here. One advantage I do have over you all is that I have actually read the report.
Frank Greening, while a very intelligent man, is A CHEMIST. He is not a structural engineer, he is not a firefighter, he is not a fire safety engineer.

HE IS A CHEMIST. While his concerns may or may not be valid, don't parading him in here like he is the expert on the matter...by a stretch. The people who actually wrote the NIST report have VASTLY SUPERIOR qualifications in the particular field of interest.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 3rd October 2010, 08:45 PM   #287
Bullwinkle2009
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
Hi, A chemist? Then he must know more about detecting and analyzing mysterious compounds. (you know, the stuff you do not find after ORDINARY office fires)

Last edited by Bullwinkle2009; 3rd October 2010 at 08:46 PM.
Bullwinkle2009 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 3rd October 2010, 08:48 PM   #288
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Bullwinkle2009 View Post
Hi, A chemist? Then he must know more about detecting and analyzing mysterious compounds. (you know, the stuff you do not find after ORDINARY office fires)
1. Why do you always start every post with Hi?

2. You mean like thermite? Curious you are. Gonna keep an eye on your posts.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 3rd October 2010, 08:55 PM   #289
Bullwinkle2009
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
Hi, (Don't really know just seems like the polite way to start I am not an internet person) I think I understand what the point of all this thread has been all along now. Why does it always take so long to get where they want us to go? I think we are going to find out why Franks ignored concerns are pertinent. It seems not to be relevant that WTC7 collapsed becaused of normal office fire.
Bullwinkle2009 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 3rd October 2010, 11:11 PM   #290
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
AH, so the cronies over at AE are using evidence and analysis provided BY NIST, to show NIST that they are wrong...wow...just wow!!!





20 minutes? really, so not 21, not 19, not 15, no 25...20 minutes.

TAM
It's NYC so the fire had strict union rules.
tsig 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 3rd October 2010, 11:22 PM   #291
thecritta
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Yes.

What else were they fuelled by, if not office contents?
thermite maybe lol
thecritta 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 4th October 2010, 12:27 AM   #292
JackDaniels
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
what is so hard to understand about the fact that building 7 fell because of structural damage and fires caused by the collapsing Twin Towers? How and why can Truthers be so blind to the obvious?
Structural damage played a negligible role according to NIST. The NIST report says the collapse of 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. They refer to it as an "extraordinary event". It is not so simple as you are making it out to be.
JackDaniels 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 4th October 2010, 01:39 AM   #293
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse.
Show me exactly how and where the OP makes that claim, please.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 4th October 2010, 01:44 AM   #294
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by JackDaniels View Post
Structural damage played a negligible role according to NIST.
Well, no. They do point out that, although the building would still have collapsed absent the structural damage, details of the collapse would have been significantly different.

But, in any case, citing NIST as a rebuttal to the claim that structural damage was a significant factor in the collapse is to acknowledge NIST's authority to comment on the cause of the collapse, in which case it implies that their findings have merit. Their findings are that the collapse was caused by the fires in the building which were started by the debris from WTC1, and that alternative theories for the cause of the collapse are wildly implausible. If you reject that conclusion, then you must also reject the conclusion that the structural damage was not a major causal factor.

So the only choice for truthers is, which way do you want to lose this argument?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 4th October 2010, 02:39 AM   #295
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,584
Wow. Way to hijack an OP.

Might as well join in myself

What if NIST got the detail wrong? What if it was column 88 that failed first?
Would it mean that fires didn't cause the collapse?

If it wasn't fire that caused the collapse what was it?

Why is WTC7 important in the big picture?

Was it one of the targets of the attackers?
Captain_Swoop 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 4th October 2010, 03:08 AM   #296
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What if NIST got the detail wrong? What if it was column 88 that failed first?
Would it mean that fires didn't cause the collapse?
No, it would mean it was a different building that collapsed. WTC7 only had 81 columns.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 4th October 2010, 03:20 AM   #297
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Problem is, there was no fire around column 79 on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. That is a major setback for NIST's theory.
(Bolding mine.)

Wrong. Where exactly the fires were in the building no longer matters once the fire goes into flashover, because the fire then spreads along the cieling, up stairways, out through gaping holes in the wall punched out by falling debris that delivers the energy of a large artillery round.

You can only count on this: The heat was never uniformly applied, which would make the steel expand and contract very unevenly. All of the cructures that collapsed were designed to sway in the wind, but in such a way that everything would sway in unison, thus supporting all other members in returning to the original shape. But to move the parts randomly places a bit of strain on connections, making them more likely to fail at a critical point.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 4th October 2010, 03:20 AM   #298
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by thecritta View Post
thermite maybe lol
You are right about one thing, the idea of thermite FUELING THE FIRES of WTC7 is Laugh Out Loudable.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th October 2010, 03:28 AM   #299
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by JackDaniels View Post
Structural damage played a negligible role according to NIST. The NIST report says the collapse of 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. They refer to it as an "extraordinary event". It is not so simple as you are making it out to be.
To be more accurate, structural damage DUE TO FALLING DEBRIS FROM WTC1, played little role (except for fire initiation) in the collapse of WTC7.

Who is making it out to be simple?

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th October 2010, 03:32 AM   #300
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
There is another video where a rescue worker says "The building is about to blow up". Is he lying or just getting it wrong?
The indivudal you cite is NYPD. NYPD was informed by FDNY that they expected WTC 7 to come down soon. I doubt that they gave NYPD all of the technical details as to what they saw occurring, as far as apparent loss of structural integrity. It was not neccessary that they do so. What did matter was that the area was unsafe and that they totally did not want anybody within the collpase zone.

So here is a cop who knew that two buildings had already comer down. He probably had not had time to do a lot of thinking about what had caused the failuire of the towers, nore had it been explained in any detail in the news broadcasts. The closest thing he could have thought of to that dust plume was an explosion of some sort.

Do learn how the human mind works.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 4th October 2010, 04:05 AM   #301
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
The indivudal you cite is NYPD. NYPD was informed by FDNY that they expected WTC 7 to come down soon. I doubt that they gave NYPD all of the technical details as to what they saw occurring, as far as apparent loss of structural integrity. It was not neccessary that they do so. What did matter was that the area was unsafe and that they totally did not want anybody within the collpase zone.

So here is a cop who knew that two buildings had already comer down. He probably had not had time to do a lot of thinking about what had caused the failuire of the towers, nore had it been explained in any detail in the news broadcasts. The closest thing he could have thought of to that dust plume was an explosion of some sort.

Do learn how the human mind works.
When your MO is to pick apart scenarios and events into their irrelevant and insignificant minutia, why would you bother with how the human mind works.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th October 2010, 04:48 AM   #302
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So, Can you present your theory?
Truthers don't do complete,coherent theories.
dafydd 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 4th October 2010, 05:00 AM   #303
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
1. Why do you always start every post with Hi?
Chan, it would be impolite to do otherwise, doe.
__________________
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
Old 4th October 2010, 05:02 AM   #304
scrummie02
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
"What specifically, scientifically, do you find incorrect with the NIST Final Report on WTC7?"

It may not end it but it is funny to watch them hand wave past it when they can't answer that question because they haven't read it or even know it exists.

I'm now hearing the argument "NIST does not have the statutory authority to make
findings of fault or negligence by individuals or organizations." because it's quoted in one of the reports.

NCSTAR1-3
scrummie02 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 4th October 2010, 05:04 AM   #305
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, it would mean it was a different building that collapsed. WTC7 only had 81 columns.

Dave
You may be on to something...

Maybe part of WTC7 was OUT OF PHASE with the rest of the universe...the part that had columns 82-97. It was destroyed by matching the quantum frequency of the out-of-phase portion, then rigging the out-of-phase columns with out-of-phase explosives, which would have detonated silently!

WE'VE UNCOVERED THE SECRET OF HUSH-A-BOOM!
__________________
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
Old 4th October 2010, 05:06 AM   #306
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Maybe part of WTC7 was OUT OF PHASE with the rest of the universe...the part that had columns 82-97. It was destroyed by matching the quantum frequency of the out-of-phase portion, then rigging the out-of-phase columns with out-of-phase explosives, which would have detonated silently!
You missed the bit about reversing the polarity of the neutron flux.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 4th October 2010, 05:08 AM   #307
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by JackDaniels View Post
They refer to it as an "extraordinary event". It is not so simple as you are making it out to be.
It can be extraordinary and yet still be simple. An event is called "extraordinary" because it rarely happens, not because it is a complicated process.

High-rise fires rarely result in collapse because there is rarely a situation where there are not enough resources available to fight the fire.

If the firebombings of WWII were to happen in today's world, with all the modern high-rise buildings, you would probably see many more examples of such collapses.
__________________
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
Old 4th October 2010, 05:09 AM   #308
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You missed the bit about reversing the polarity of the neutron flux.

Dave
Oh, right...that would have vaporized Earth ten years ahead of schedule.
__________________
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
Old 4th October 2010, 05:13 AM   #309
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
When your MO is to pick apart scenarios and events into their irrelevant and insignificant minutia, why would you bother with how the human mind works.
This is why most twoofers fail as investigators. They do not understand human motives or how other people are going to see the same situation differently than how it happened or how other people saw it happen.

Rarely will two eye witnesses see exactly the same thing.

Here is a hypothetical. I am nearly deaf. You hear a clanging sound around the corner of the nearest building. I hear nothing. Three people come dashing around the corner. One of them is wieklding a baseball bat over his head as if the strike the first one who came around the corner. You see this and conclude that the man with the bat had actually struck the fleeing man with the bat. But I do not notice it, because I am looking at a knife in the hand of the third man.

The first man falls over suddenly and does not move.

You see a man who has died because of a concusion. I see one who was stabbed to death.

We are both sure that our scenario is the correct one.

The autopsy shows that there was no bleeding intercranially, but that there was a large puncture wound in the victim's back. Being both rational men, we then agree that the victim was stabbed to death.

However, if you are a twoofer, you are probably still saying, "Uh-uh, dude. They beat his freakin' brains out with a baseball bat."
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 4th October 2010, 05:56 AM   #310
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Bullwinkle2009 View Post
Hi, I read the report and it says there were no blast events. It states fire caused the collapse.
How did they establish that there were no blast events?
cooperman 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 4th October 2010, 06:00 AM   #311
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
How did they establish that there were no blast events?
1. Did you read the wtc7 report?
2. If the report did not answer this question to your satisfaction, did you send an email to any member of NIST asking them to elaborate or clarify?

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th October 2010, 06:02 AM   #312
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
1. Did you read the wtc7 report?
2. If the report did not answer this question to your satisfaction, did you send an email to any member of NIST asking them to elaborate or clarify?

TAM
1. Yes

2. Yes I did. I recieved no reply.

NIST seem to conclude that there were no blasts because people didn't hear them. A strange conclusion, given that people did indeed hear loud noises that could (notice I said COULD) have been blasts.
cooperman 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 4th October 2010, 06:06 AM   #313
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
No if i recall correctly, they did a little more then simply state that because witnesses didn't hear them, they didn't exist.

Be honest now.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th October 2010, 06:11 AM   #314
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Cooperman,

If you did indeed read the final wtc7 report (i am not convinced you did), please refer to page 26-27

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th October 2010, 06:12 AM   #315
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
No if i recall correctly, they did a little more then simply state that because witnesses didn't hear them, they didn't exist.

Be honest now.

TAM
Perhaps you could be honest. The post I have quoted is not an accurate reflection of what I said. I said they CONCLUDED that there were no blasts because they werent heard. I never claimed that they simply stated it.
cooperman 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 4th October 2010, 06:14 AM   #316
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,703
So.....Have they posted their theory yet?


__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 4th October 2010, 06:17 AM   #317
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Perhaps you could be honest. The post I have quoted is not an accurate reflection of what I said. I said they CONCLUDED that there were no blasts because they werent heard. I never claimed that they simply stated it.
You are being dishonest in presenting their conclusion. They did not conclude no blast events because noone heard them alone.

They used a program called SHAMRC to simulate the minimal blast that would be required to bring down the tower, and ran it to see if there would be any window breakage from the blast event. It said the should have been windOw breakage along with very loud noise with such blasts, and given there was neither reported, that there was no evidence of blast events.

You are very dishonest....stop it.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 4th October 2010, 06:18 AM   #318
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Cooperman,

If you did indeed read the final wtc7 report (i am not convinced you did), please refer to page 26-27

TAM
Please quote the relevant portion.

The relevant portion, to this discussion, is:

Quote:
A Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing the critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
NCSTAR 1-A, p xxxii
cooperman 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 4th October 2010, 06:22 AM   #319
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
They also limit their blast hypothesis to column 79. WHy would they do that when no proponent of controlled demolition believes it was column 79. 79 is their theory.
cooperman 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 4th October 2010, 06:24 AM   #320
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
NIST seem to conclude that there were no blasts because people didn't hear them. A strange conclusion, given that people did indeed hear loud noises that could (notice I said COULD) have been blasts.
There are no accounts of anyone hearing noises loud enough to cause temporary loss of hearing, nor of anyone hearing loud noises that could have been blasts, in the few seconds preceding the initiation of collapse. There are also, as you've pointed out, sound recordings of the collapse from which any such noises are absent. Loud noises at any other times are of no significance, as these cannot be related to the collapse initiation, and are probably either impacts of falling objects or combustion events of kinds that are commonplace in building fires.

It's worth noting that the lower limit found by NIST for charges capable of severing only column 79 is +130dB, which coincides with the threshold of pain. It's inconceivable that any noise this loud could have passed unnoticed.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 12:20 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.