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.
Reply
Old 18th May 2016, 05:22 PM   #2361
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The "structural damage" was superficial. Source: NIST. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural failure, than the engineer would have to have a 100% perfect understanding of the current situation, which means disagreeing with the firefighters there who though the damage from North Tower rubble was pretty bad. The firefighters went through the trauma of the Twin Towers collapsing, and the loss of their brothers. An engineer "from the office of emergency management", however, would have a fresher and more professional perspective. This engineer predicting the hour of the collapse when the big fires had only been burning for about 30 minutes to an hour is very suspicious.



Yeah right, we all know that tall steel buildings on fire just end up as charred skeletons except for 9/11. What does not happen is a collapse just like a controlled demolition like something out of Loony tunes.
Wow...two big lies back to back.

The structural damage was major and extensive. Seven of the exterior load bearing columns were completely severed by the collapse of the North Tower.

Charred Skeletons? Architects and Structural Engineers who design steel buildings for a living, know steel structures are subject to collapse due to fire. That is why they install sprinkler systems and wrap the steel members in fireproofing.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:23 PM   #2362
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
MicahJava




I've asked you before to tell us your educational & professional background.

With this comment, you appear to be making a claim to having a structural engineering background, with a specialization in “fire damage assessment” & “progressive collapse”.



Sometime sarcasm doesn’t transmit well in this medium, so let me be clear.
I have complete confidence that you’ve never set foot in a mechanical/structural engineering classroom.

Care to share your real background?
We’ve all found out that truthers rarely share their backgrounds. The main reason: they have none that is pertinent to any of these issues. They are amateurs.
And they get their information from other amateurs.
Which is exactly what you have done.

We’ve all found out that debunkers almost always share their backgrounds. The main reason: debunkers are smart enough to listen to, & depend upon, the opinions & conclusions of experts.
__

One of your real problems is that you accept entirely implausible reports in the media as “facts”.

Here’s an interesting exercise, and it will be enlightening, if you play along.

Walk thru ALL the steps that you believe culminated in the decision for Hayden to order the clearing of the perimeter around WTC7, because it might be in danger of collapse.

Ignore the numbers. Put in whatever you want, but start with …

1. WTC 1 collapses, breaking water mains, causing some amount of damage to WTC7 & starting some fires inside.
2. …
3. …
4. ….
5. Someone called for somebody with a transit.
6. A guy with a transit arrives & does (something)
7. …
8. …
9. …
10. And Deputy Chief Hayden gets the message that (… something).
11. …
12. …
13. Deputy Chef Hayden records his oral history, asserting that “someone told him that the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”

I am really curious what you are going to say.

I am pretty damn sure that both of the following are false:

1. the engineer / fireman taking those measurements said “the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”.
2. the engineer based his measurements on measurements of “the bulge”.

My confidence is due to the fact that I’ve been the engineer taking measurements like that, in some perilous situations. Dangerous to fewer other people, so less of a disaster. But potentially fatal to me, so more of a catastrophe.

After you present your sequence, I’ll present mine & we’ll compare notes.
I have no professional expertise. I am waiting on NIST's answer to one of my FOIA requests for transcripts of interviews with some fire chiefs in order for me to gain a better understanding of the situation leading up to WTC 7 becoming a pile of rubble. NIST would have asked many specific questions about WTC 7, so that would be a better source of information rather than a few quotes from Firehouse magazine and the FDNY oral histories (which did not focus on WTC 7). I admittedly only have some sparse quotes too, if my FOIA request is approved then we can compare notes. My suspicion is that the engineer from the office of emergency management was the person who influenced almost all of the foreknowledge of the collapse, and that no person on planet earth can predict the hour in which a giant skyscraper will collapse from fire.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:26 PM   #2363
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,183
It seems each new Truther is worse than tbe last.
A steady downward spiral.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:27 PM   #2364
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Wow...two big lies back to back.

The structural damage was major and extensive. Seven of the exterior load bearing columns were completely severed by the collapse of the North Tower.

Charred Skeletons? Architects and Structural Engineers who design steel buildings for a living, know steel structures are subject to collapse due to fire. That is why they install sprinkler systems and wrap the steel members in fireproofing.
Sprinklers are implemented in buildings because nobody wants crap burning all day. What is your source (pre-9/11 preferred) that fireproofing material is applied to structural steel to prevent collapse? It could just be to prevent major warping so repair is easier.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:31 PM   #2365
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The "structural damage" was superficial. Source: NIST.
Sorry, Bucko. NIST never said the structural damage was superficial. They said the structural damage was not the immediate cause of the collapse. Big difference!

Admit it: you haven't read the engineering reports, have you? I'll bet you don't even have copies downloaded to your computer, do you? You're not alone - in just the last week or so, I've shown that FF hasn't read NCSTAR 1-9 (he at least admitted it, and said he had no interest in doing so), and on one of the FB 9/11 pages, I showed that a Truther who's been repeating the same failed WTC Tropes for at least eight years hasn't read them, either. I'm beginning to suspect that there's not a single Truther who's ever actually read them! But how do you expect to persuade the general public, much less professionals, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute?

Try this: Go to NCSTAR 1-9, then search for the word "superficial" with Ctrl+4. I did, and could only find two positive searches, neither of which help you. But maybe you can catch something my elderly eyes missed.

Even better, download and read them. It can't do you any harm, and can only make you smarter. You might even become the smartest Truther in all Trutherdom!
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:35 PM   #2366
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
What difference does it make? To the average person, it just proves he was right! The burden is upon you to prove he couldn't possibly be right. I suggest reading standard textbooks on the subject of collapse from fires. It can't do you any harm, and it may even make you smarter.
I found a free copy of "Collapse of Burning Buildings - A Guide to Fireground Safety" on library genesis, It's post 9/11 but I'll check it out.

Quote:
Do you think he wasn't a real engineer? Maybe an NWO agent who fooled all the FDNY into believing it would collapse, when their own judgment said it wouldn't?
I suspect that the engineer knew about a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Experts would have had to design it's collapse if it was a CD.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:36 PM   #2367
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Sprinklers are implemented in buildings because nobody wants crap burning all day. What is your source (pre-9/11 preferred) that fireproofing material is applied to structural steel to prevent collapse? It could just be to prevent major warping so repair is easier.
Wrong...read the Fire/Life/Safety code, it outlines fireproofing requirements and the need for a fire repression systems. You can just make up stupid stuff and call it the truth.

I'm presently working on the design of a cut-and-cover highway tunnel. We are probably going to use prestressed concrete for the roof system, because of the higher fire rating.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:39 PM   #2368
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post


I suspect that the engineer knew about a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Experts would have had to design it's collapse if it was a CD.
Wouldn't these same expert notice signs that a collapse was inevitable?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:48 PM   #2369
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Sorry, Bucko. NIST never said the structural damage was superficial. They said the structural damage was not the immediate cause of the collapse. Big difference!

Admit it: you haven't read the engineering reports, have you? I'll bet you don't even have copies downloaded to your computer, do you? You're not alone - in just the last week or so, I've shown that FF hasn't read NCSTAR 1-9 (he at least admitted it, and said he had no interest in doing so), and on one of the FB 9/11 pages, I showed that a Truther who's been repeating the same failed WTC Tropes for at least eight years hasn't read them, either. I'm beginning to suspect that there's not a single Truther who's ever actually read them! But how do you expect to persuade the general public, much less professionals, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute?

Try this: Go to NCSTAR 1-9, then search for the word "superficial" with Ctrl+4. I did, and could only find two positive searches, neither of which help you. But maybe you can catch something my elderly eyes missed.

Even better, download and read them. It can't do you any harm, and can only make you smarter. You might even become the smartest Truther in all Trutherdom!
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours."

"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."

"Based on photographic evidence, witness accounts, and engineering judgment, it is likely that the structural damage (steel and floor slabs) did not penetrate beyond the perimeter of the building core. At the southwest corner, the structural damage extended only about one-third of the distance from the exterior wall to the building core. The debris also broke a large number of windows on the south face. Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7."


http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=861610
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 05:54 PM   #2370
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
It seems each new Truther is worse than tbe last.
A steady downward spiral.
Agreed the "downward spiral".

These days most of them are trolls rather than truthers - 'genuine truthers' may be obsessed - may lack understanding - BUT most of them have at least a core interest in truth - provided it doesn't directly conflict with their political agenda. Not so for trolls or Poes.

BUT there are two sides to the causes of the "downward spiral".

If people stopped feeding the trolling egos - stopped giving them the attention which is EXACTLY what they are seeking - most of them would disappear. (Proof of that is easy - I'll bet you have never seen a starving troll....)##

Even for dedicated trolls the "half life" seems to be about 12 - 18 months.

BUT I think is is far more reasonable to expect visually observable aeronautical exploits by members of the genus family suidae BEFORE we will see reduction in troll feeding activities. I'll put my money on the aeronautical suidae BEFORE cessation of troll feeding.





## Yeah - I know - but why shouldn't I be allowed to use truther logic.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:01 PM   #2371
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Wouldn't these same expert notice signs that a collapse was inevitable?
Hayden said in his BBC interview he said the engineer told him "you have about five hours". In a court document, Hayden is quoted saying that the engineer told him that the building will collapse in "five or six hours", and in his words "he was pretty much right on the money because it collapsed at 5 in the afternoon" (the collapse was actually at 5:22 PM).

5:00 PM minus 5 hours is 12:00 PM. 5:00 PM minus 6 hours is 11:00 AM.
5:22 PM minus 5 hours is 12:22 AM. 5:22 PM minus 6 hours is 11:22 AM.

North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

The first photographic evidence for fires in WTC 7 is at 12:10 PM.

What's your timeline for when things like creaking, groaning, and the perimeter bulge were first noticed?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:03 PM   #2372
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Wrong...read the Fire/Life/Safety code, it outlines fireproofing requirements and the need for a fire repression systems. You can just make up stupid stuff and call it the truth.

I'm presently working on the design of a cut-and-cover highway tunnel. We are probably going to use prestressed concrete for the roof system, because of the higher fire rating.
Please... quotes. Pre-9/11 sources preferred. On this website you can find many free downloads of ebooks and scientific literature: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:04 PM   #2373
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hayden said in his BBC interview he said the engineer told him "you have about five hours". In a court document, Hayden is quoted saying that the engineer told him that the building will collapse in "five or six hours", and in his words "he was pretty much right on the money because it collapsed at 5 in the afternoon" (the collapse was actually at 5:22 PM).

5:00 PM minus 5 hours is 12:00 PM. 5:00 PM minus 6 hours is 11:00 AM.
5:22 PM minus 5 hours is 12:22 AM. 5:22 PM minus 6 hours is 11:22 AM.

North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

The first photographic evidence for fires in WTC 7 is at 12:10 PM.

What's your timeline for when things like creaking, groaning, and the perimeter bulge were first noticed?
So? Are you accusing this person of being "in on it"?

Do you really believe that the first fires were when the first photo evidence was? Mr Jennings disagrees as does several fire fighters that gave testimony. Were they lying in your professional opinion?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 18th May 2016 at 06:07 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:14 PM   #2374
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So? Are you accusing this person of being "in on it"?
The engineer? I suspect that he knew about a controlled demolition.

Quote:
Do you really believe that the first fires were when the first photo evidence was? Mr Jennings disagrees as does several fire fighters that gave testimony. Were they lying in your professional opinion?
Quotes? Examples?

The last time I brung this up, the answer I got was that the fires simply took an hour and 45 minutes to become large enough to be noticeable to cameras. So the first hard evidence for large fires in the building was at 12:10 PM on 9/11/2001.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:19 PM   #2375
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So arsonists never start a fire near an circuit breaker or a fireplace to hide their deeds and ward off investigations?
Not in a building surrounded by every cop and firefighter in the city they don't.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:20 PM   #2376
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The engineer? I suspect that he knew about a controlled demolition.



Quotes? Examples?

The last time I brung this up, the answer I got was that the fires simply took an hour and 45 minutes to become large enough to be noticeable to cameras. So the first hard evidence for large fires in the building was at 12:10 PM on 9/11/2001.
That's a lie.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:22 PM   #2377
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That's a lie.
???
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:41 PM   #2378
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Please... quotes. Pre-9/11 sources preferred. On this website you can find many free downloads of ebooks and scientific literature: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
Dodge...
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:46 PM   #2379
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Dodge...
Do you have a link to a pre-9/11 Life Safety Code or equivalent?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:47 PM   #2380
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
???
As I said, you weren't there. WTC 7 had heavy fire as soon as the north tower hit it.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:53 PM   #2381
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have a link to a pre-9/11 Life Safety Code or equivalent?
Son...grow up...learn to be adult. Look it up yourself...
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 06:55 PM   #2382
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
As I said, you weren't there. WTC 7 had heavy fire as soon as the north tower hit it.
Are you referring to the smoke that was sticking to the south face of the building? I think that is what many firefighters are referring to when they say things like "All forty seven stories were engulfed in fire".
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 07:01 PM   #2383
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Son...grow up...learn to be adult. Look it up yourself...
I tried looking it up. The 2000 edition of the NFPA 101 isn't free.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 07:03 PM   #2384
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I tried looking it up. The 2000 edition of the NFPA 101 isn't free.
Check with Richard Gage, maybe he will loan you his copy.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 07:13 PM   #2385
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Lol. 9/11 actually lead me to JFK. I stopped posting to that thread because that rabbit hole is so complicated. I tried arguing for a sniper behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, but now I actually think it's a distinct possibility that some kind of firecracker was used near there as a diversion. If there was a shooter from the upper right front, they could have been from the grassy knoll storm drain near the bridge.
As opposed to this rabbit hole?

9-11 Truth was a dead end before it started. Nothing adds up except the actual known event. No CD, no special thermite. It is an example of a CT back-engineered in hopes of fitting a counter narrative to a short list of unimportant facts.

WTC7 took 20 minutes to collapse, hardly free-fall speed. Also, there is no such thing as free fall speed, it a phrase from the intellectual sphincter of Truthers, not science.

The CIA was not listed in the building, the Secret Service was, and it would be easy to verify because someone had to pay the rent, and the Secret Service didn't have the CIA's budget. But let's pretend the CIA was there - so what? I guarantee that nobody in the entire city cared. Destroying documents, if it came to that, is almost a religious process for Langley, and it would have been done so fast that nobody would have known.

No reason to destroy a building when all you need is a couple of guys, a van, and a secure incinerator. When time comes to cough up subpoenaed documents the Agency would do what it always does: stall for as long as possible, and then claim shock when they discover that the documents had been destroyed as part of a "scheduled" mcguffin procedure. We saw this with the video and audio tapes of CIA interrogation/torture sessions.

So there was no logical reason to destroy WTC7, hell, Al Qaeda didn't know it was there.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 07:14 PM   #2386
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Check with Richard Gage, maybe he will loan you his copy.
I found a 2010 edition ebook of Collapse of Burning Buildings : A Guide to Fireground Safety by Vincent Dunn, but it references the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 several times and cites NIST. Do you think I'm "dodging" by asking for a pre-9/11 source? I want to see material written from a pre-9/11 perspective.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 07:34 PM   #2387
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I found a 2010 edition ebook of Collapse of Burning Buildings : A Guide to Fireground Safety by Vincent Dunn, but it references the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 several times and cites NIST. Do you think I'm "dodging" by asking for a pre-9/11 source? I want to see material written from a pre-9/11 perspective.
That'll prove controlled demolition? Nice. How about the rest of the day?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 07:40 PM   #2388
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Arsonists often cover up their crimes. If the WTC was a demolition and one of the motives was to destroy files, then the arsonists did a very good job.

Your claim was that destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

This is an example of what we call the "unevaluated inequality fallacy" here. It's a claim that one quantity (in this case, the likelihood of destroying documents with a paper shredder leading to an investigation) is greater than another quantity (in this case, the likelihood of an elaborate arson leading to an investigation), without specifying either quantity.

Given that virtually all structure fires are investigated to determine their causes, while anyone can walk into any office supply store and buy a paper shredder with cash without being tailed from the store by any government agents (and larger-scale document destruction is a legal multi-billion dollar business), it's pretty clear why you've left the inequality unevaluated. Because once you do evaluate it, it makes the claim sound as ridiculous as it actually is.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 07:50 PM   #2389
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Your claim was that destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

This is an example of what we call the "unevaluated inequality fallacy" here. It's a claim that one quantity (in this case, the likelihood of destroying documents with a paper shredder leading to an investigation) is greater than another quantity (in this case, the likelihood of an elaborate arson leading to an investigation), without specifying either quantity.

Given that virtually all structure fires are investigated to determine their causes, while anyone can walk into any office supply store and buy a paper shredder with cash without being tailed from the store by any government agents (and larger-scale document destruction is a legal multi-billion dollar business), it's pretty clear why you've left the inequality unevaluated. Because once you do evaluate it, it makes the claim sound as ridiculous as it actually is.
Important documents suddenly going missing is more suspicious than important documents being lost in the destruction of a building that is assumed to be nothing more than an unpreventable accident.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:09 PM   #2390
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah right, that guy predicted a total historical first with no basis.
[Steel] structures collapsing from fire is not a historical first. High rises are structures, and being a high rise does not immunize them from the effects of fire. If anything, I'd say it makes them more vulnerable

Structural engineers are trained to deal with structures.

The guy predicted a predictable event.

Like many others did.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:10 PM   #2391
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is like one or two sparse quotes about a transit detecting movement of the building. Still no photographic evidence presented to make the case that it was "leaning". I'm not claiming they're liars, just sometimes wrong, like the firefighters who claimed that all 47 stories were involved in fire.
I hope you can see the difference between being wrong about eyeballing the huge smoke cloud coming out of the WTC7 façade and being wrong with the use of a precision measuring instrument, used for the purpose it is designed for, and the information of which may be critical to save lives.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:11 PM   #2392
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The point I'm making by quoting the NFPA 921 is that it describes characteristics of intentional destruction that apply to the WTC. I know that the NFPA material has no legal grounds.
A fire investigator in that forum says that the 921 quotes are taken out of context and that they don't mean what you say they mean.

That's the part you have missed. There's no need for an investigation based on your claims, because your claims are the result of misinterpretation.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:12 PM   #2393
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So? Are you accusing this person of being "in on it"?

Do you really believe that the first fires were when the first photo evidence was? Mr Jennings disagrees as does several fire fighters that gave testimony. Were they lying in your professional opinion?
And an engineer. Mike Catalano I think was his name. He reports the generators as the source of the fire, when WTC2 fell.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:14 PM   #2394
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The first version of the BBC's Conspiracy Files Third Tower program, aired July 6 2008, has the denial of freefall. This was edited out of subsequent airings, after NIST confirmed freefall.

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shayam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

Link to portion of video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

Subtitle file for original airing: http://subsaga.com/bbc/documentaries...ird-tower.html

In NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf), says this about the motions of the building:

"the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." -NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf)

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=909254

In their final report, usage of the phrase "consistent with physical principles" was edited out.

In NIST's technical briefing on WTC 7 (August 26 2008), Shayam Sunder had this to say:

"Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-...6C1F5EDFC83824

Full transcript of technical briefing: http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Bri...Transcript.pdf
Sunder is right.

The time it took the building to fall 17 floors was about 40% higher than that it would have taken if it was falling in free fall for the same height.

But in fact the whole building started moving before it reached g (gravity acceleration), which means that, before the time it reached g, all columns had already failed. This, by the way, disproves that free fall is an indicator of explosive demolition, unless you can explain why anyone would blow exterior columns, and how would it be boom-less (being the exterior, i.e. more exposed than the interior).

That introduced a delay. After that, the acceleration was also less than g. Both delays combined account for the 40% more than free-fall time that Sunder reports.

In these quotes he doesn't deny free fall. He denies free fall for 17 floors. And indeed it didn't happen.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:24 PM   #2395
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,125
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Nope, NIST and Shayam Sunder not only erroneously claimed that there was no freefall, but stated that freefall would be incompatible with the structural failure they were studying. Only in their Final Report did they get around to admitting freefall and omitting the phrase "consistent with physical principals".
Liar

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh, awesome. There was an investigation? Can you link to me the inquiry into who that engineer was who told Chief Peter Hayden at 12:00-1:00 PM that WTC 7 was going to collapse in "five or six hours"? I was pretty curious of who that character was. Predicting when a skyscraper will collapse from fire when the heavy fires were only burning for about an hour, I think he deserves James Randi's million dollar prize because he's psychic!
I gave you a link to some fire experts, stop being so lazy and go ask them.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:27 PM   #2396
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,125
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Quit that BS. You know NIST denied freefall and said that it can't happen. In the end, they couldn't even fool a high school physics teacher.
Oh look a truther caught lying again.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:50 PM   #2397
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
[Steel] structures collapsing from fire is not a historical first. High rises are structures, and being a high rise does not immunize them from the effects of fire. If anything, I'd say it makes them more vulnerable
Tall buildings have stronger and larger structural components than short buildings.

Quote:
Structural engineers are trained to deal with structures.

The guy predicted a predictable event.

Like many others did.
The closest example I could find is the One Meridian Plaza fire.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...dienplaza.html

"The entire city block surrounding the damaged building, One Meridian Plaza, was roped off today.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/us...-of-tower.html

1. The engineer told them that it may be in danger of collapse. He did not say with great certainty that it would collapse, nor did he predict the hour in which it would collapse.

2. It did not collapse.

Last edited by MicahJava; 18th May 2016 at 08:57 PM. Reason: a word
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:52 PM   #2398
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Sunder is right.

The time it took the building to fall 17 floors was about 40% higher than that it would have taken if it was falling in free fall for the same height.

But in fact the whole building started moving before it reached g (gravity acceleration), which means that, before the time it reached g, all columns had already failed. This, by the way, disproves that free fall is an indicator of explosive demolition, unless you can explain why anyone would blow exterior columns, and how would it be boom-less (being the exterior, i.e. more exposed than the interior).

That introduced a delay. After that, the acceleration was also less than g. Both delays combined account for the 40% more than free-fall time that Sunder reports.

In these quotes he doesn't deny free fall. He denies free fall for 17 floors. And indeed it didn't happen.
WTC 7 took 13.8 billion years to collapse. Source: Big Bang theory.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 08:55 PM   #2399
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
And an engineer. Mike Catalano I think was his name. He reports the generators as the source of the fire, when WTC2 fell.
Where does he describe that he perceived the diesel fuel tank in WTC 7 on fire?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 09:05 PM   #2400
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I hope you can see the difference between being wrong about eyeballing the huge smoke cloud coming out of the WTC7 façade and being wrong with the use of a precision measuring instrument, used for the purpose it is designed for, and the information of which may be critical to save lives.
Transits aren't used to measure when a fire began burning, but ok. At what time was this instrument used during the day? If the instrument was placed near where the bulge was forming on the perimeter, could that give a wrong impression that the entire building was shifting, rather than a relatively small part of it? What could specifically be the cause of the building "shifting"/"moving"? How can that relate to the collapse that occurred?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 04:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.