What brought down WTC7

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
You realize that Richard Gage, their iconic leader or whatever, is a guy who has never been involved in designing, building, or understanding a structure as tall or complicated as the WTC?

I don't give a shit who he is, or if anyone else was calling out the physical impossibility of the official story at all. You and your fellow falsers keep claiming some vast expert consensus while failing to show any notable list of credentialed people have even seriously reviewed WTC7's fall, let alone sign on to the official story. So, I confront your mythical claims with the fact that a group of nearly 1000 architects and engineers have come out against the official conspiracy theory you so zealously cling to.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
There isn't a single article in a peer-reviewed journal (ASCE or not) that supports your claims...

There isn't a single article which attempts to explain WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, and there isn't going to be until people come to terms with the fact that some yet to be identified force(s) had to be involved.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
There's a good reason for that and it's not that every journal in the world has been co-opted into the Big Bad Government Conspiracy.

Not that I ever made any claims of any grand government conspiracy, but I suppose a falser like yourself can't help but misrepresent my position to avoid addressing the facts.

I got Ask . Are you really a timax . Ya take a liken and keep on a ticken .

Listen Commard By Chrismas 80% here well be helping you with the Math well we eat Pizza.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1 I got Ask . Are you really a timax . Ya take a liken and keep on a ticken .

It's just that I don't step into arguments on matters outside my understanding, and don't back down from those who do.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Listen Commard By Chrismas 80% here well be helping you with the Math well we eat Pizza.

I don't need any help with the math. I'm just not about to go through all the trouble of digging up the needed info to make a reasonable estimate of the figures, or expounding with vector analysis. There is no reason to do anything of the sort anyway, as none of that will change the conclusions, and anyone who doesn't understand as much couldn't rightly be expected to comprehend such math anyway. It would be nice if any of the faslers here would try to refute my position mathematically though, as pointing out wherever they go wrong in doing so could be helpful. Unfortunately, at this point I'm not hopeful of that happening by Christmas, and am left to wonder if hell might freeze over first.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1 I got Ask . Are you really a timax . Ya take a liken and keep on a ticken .

It's just that I don't step into arguments on matters outside my understanding, and don't back down from those who do.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Listen Commard By Chrismas 80% here well be helping you with the Math well we eat Pizza.

I don't need any help with the math. I'm just not about to go through all the trouble of digging up the needed info to make a reasonable estimate of the figures, or expounding with vector analysis. There is no reason to do anything of the sort anyway, as none of that will change the conclusions, and anyone who doesn't understand as much couldn't rightly be expected to comprehend such math anyway. It would be nice if any of the faslers here would try to refute my position mathematically though, as pointing out wherever they go wrong in doing so could be helpful. Unfortunately, at this point I'm not hopeful of that happening by Christmas, and am left to wonder if hell might freeze over first.

If you have demonstrated anything in this thread, it is that you are in a big argument on matters outside your understanding.

You say something is physically impossible, yet you have no clue about dynamic physics. Every time someone tries to get you to understand that, you plug your ears and type "la la la la, Physically impossible! la la la la"

Dr Pizza provided plenty of examples for you where a dynamic load on a system will cause the system to provide negligible resistance. So what do you do? You attack the PH.d. in math and claim that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Seriously? I'm supposed to believe that you, who has never provided a shred of evidence that you know what you are talking about, over a guy that I know has a PH.d. in that field and TEACHES calculus?

Here's a hint, when someone has a PH.d., in a subject, the smart thing isn't to say "Your dumb and you've never dealt with math!!!1!" If your argument is valid, they you better well be willing to prove that it is valid. Otherwise you might as well be arguing that the moon is made of cream cheese and everyone who doesn't believe that is a sheep appealing to authority.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
You "offered to present the math as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort." Dr. Pizza came in and gave you his list of qualifications...

Sure enough, he fell back on his credentials, apparently incapable of demonstrating any comprehension of the physics involved, mathematically or otherwise. Hence, I had no reason to present the math.

does that sentence make any sense to anyone? anyone at all??

Here's what I'm seeing:

Kyle: I'll present my math when someone shows they have the credentials, background and ability to understand it
Pizza: I teach math for a living and hold advanced mathematics degrees
Kyle: You're falling back on credentials, prove to me you will understand the math I will post before I post it.

If a phd calculus prof "can't understand" your math it's probably because your math no makee no sensee.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


You are an idiot and a liar. You don't enter an argument saying "I have evidence, but I'm not gonna show you cause you're too dumb to understand it." The whole point of debate isn't just to disagree with someone, it is to advance an argument, backed up by evidence or logical thinking, in an attempt to sway people to agree with your conclusion. When you start off your sales pitch with "you're too stupid to understand," not only are you completely failing to convince anyone that you actually have evidence that they should consider, you are also directly insulting them, which is a bad way to get people on your side. This makes you an idiot (see how I provided evidence to back up my initial claim that you are an idiot? That's called developing an argument).

Now, a liar: You "offered to present the math as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort." Dr. Pizza came in and gave you his list of qualifications, which includes advanced degrees in mathematics along with currently being employed as a math teacher. If that's not demonstrating enough ability, than perhaps you should find a forum frequented by theoretical physicists; no one else is going to best those qualifications. After Dr. Pizza came in and gave his qualifications, you did not present your math; you were dismissive of him, as you were with everyone else in this thread who didn't already agree with you. You lied about presenting your math, so someone else had to post it for you, where it was, in fact, refuted by posters who have presented more qualifications than you have (Dr. Pizza, for one, though perhaps you could post your mathematics and physics background so we can see why we should trust your opinion over his).

You have lied repeatedly in this thread, including this reply of yours that I have quoted. You have proven yourself incapable of advancing an argument. You refuse to respond to the numerous pieces of evidence that directly contradict your point. You refuse to engage Dr. Pizza in an honest discussion of the math and physics you claim to have (which just makes others, myself included, believe that you are not confident your math will stand up to the scrutiny of a real mathematician, which hardly advances your position). I contend that the only thing this thread has demonstrated is that you have no understanding of the concepts you are trying to advance, you are incapable of thinking logically, and when put under pressure, you are incapable of providing a shred of evidence to back up your position. You are an idiot and a liar, and it's time for everyone in this thread to be done with you.

You made a powerful argument Atomic. Well done.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

If only that post had timewarped itself to the #1 post...

Put a fork in it, this thread is done for reasons outlined in the above post.

 

[Number1]

I don't think there is anything that needs to be discussed in this thread anymore. The twuthers have been unable to advance their position or convince anybody.

Kyle refuses to address the real issues, keeps repeating the same thing over and over again and calls anybody who disagrees with him an idiot.

LunarRay is sill sitting on the fence.

Event8orison keeps cuting and pasting the same shit over and over again because he can't write English and can't understand the explanations presented to him by others.

I keep getting pissed off at the stupidity of the arguments presented by the twuthers especially the argument that somebody's facial expression can be used as an argument supporting conspiracies.

DrPizza's well reasoned and intelligent post keep getting dismissed as incompetent babble by Kyle.

and on and on and on

Us "falser" have ruthlessness destroyed their arguments AND they can't even comprehend that.

The twuther movement is losing steam. Anybody with any prominence or fame who gives them any credibility is assure immediate ridicule and is to be avoided like a confirmed case of H1N1 coughing in a crowded bus.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I like the way Jesus charcaterised arguments like ElFenix's in Matthew 23:24:

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Neither the creatures in question being permissible to eat under Jewish law, but swallowing a whole camel obviously being a much larger infraction than ingesting a single gnat.

so your method of argument is ignoring all evidence to the contrary and personal attacks. awesome.

when you provide something concrete then people will take you seriously. all you've done so far is say that because A can't happen, B can't happen either. just looking through the mess you made over at jref refutes almost everything you've claimed.

as posted over there:

Without numbers your comments are meaningless. How much resistance are you talking about? Enough to reduce the acceleration by how much? What's the error margin on the measured acceleration, and does the actual acceleration fall within that margin? You have no idea, so stop pretending that you know.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

lol. kyle is still tapdancing to avoid answering any questions and event8horizon is still playing the role of General CnP Linkbot. "Truthers." What a riot. More like "Pretenders."

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1
I don't think there is anything that needs to be discussed in this thread anymore. The twuthers have been unable to advance their position or convince anybody.

Kyle refuses to address the real issues, keeps repeating the same thing over and over again and calls anybody who disagrees with him an idiot.

LunarRay is sill sitting on the fence.

Event8orison keeps cuting and pasting the same shit over and over again because he can't write English and can't understand the explanations presented to him by others.

I keep getting pissed off at the stupidity of the arguments presented by the twuthers especially the argument that somebody's facial expression can be used as an argument supporting conspiracies.

DrPizza's well reasoned and intelligent post keep getting dismissed as incompetent babble by Kyle.

and on and on and on

Us "falser" have ruthlessness destroyed their arguments AND they can't even comprehend that.

The twuther movement is losing steam. Anybody with any prominence or fame who gives them any credibility is assure immediate ridicule and is to be avoided like a confirmed case of H1N1 coughing in a crowded bus.

Let's see if your reasoning is compelling to my Silkie Terrier... He's growling so I'm not sure yet?

There is stuff to be discussed... For instance: The NIST 'Math'... I can't find it anywhere so how are we to even get on the same page without having some frame of reference?
A listing of Evidence that they would have considered had they looked for it but did not because they felt that to look for what is not there is a waste of money?

Kyle indicated that the only issue he's wishing to deal with in the OP 'Vessy St. Miracle'. AKA the missing 18 seconds of SIM data and algorithms. The real issue can't be debated until we know what NIST calculated and how... from beginning to end of the Collapse.

I'm sitting and waiting to understand why no one at NIST had a stop watch and if they did why they didn't bother to evaluate the many videos of WTC 7 collapse timing until some teacher showed them how.

Event8horizon reposts cuz the explanations are not responsive to the post he made. That is an often reoccurring phenomenon, it seems.

Don't get upset Number1, There is an entire body of forensic psychology that deals with body language and signs of deceit. Folks can't readily hide what they are unaware that they do under conditions such as 'testifying' to an event their mind knows to be different to what they say.

DrPizza does make good arguments. I'd expect any educated person to be able to reason through a soda pop can's reaction to an elephant stomping on it... The only problem I'd have with that is the visualization of the event is so quick - as the can gets squished - that I can't see nor measure the actual forces at play nor the resistance affect on the 6" of possible free fall. IF DrPizza would evaluate the WTC 7 data and conclude something... the SIM data or the 'Maths' related to the event's beginning until its conclusion we'd be in a position to better understand if the building can do what we see that it did and that be consistent with the single gun theory... I mean NIST theory.

Joey, my Silkie gets a bone and gnaws and gnaws till there is nothing left to gnaw on... I think if NIST produced their data we'd quickly run out of stuff to gnaw on or... who knows a whole new world may begin.

I'd not call you a "falser". I'd call you folks magician's helpers if I was asked to proffer a term. Henry Lee once said.. " ... somethings wrong ... " IF you think what NIST produced is good enough for government work that's fine but please don't tell me that there is no evidence to examine regarding WTC 7 because to look for what you already deduced does not exist without looking to see if that is the case is like putting on a blind fold and proclaiming that there is no Sun and if there was you'd see it so why look.

The typical American apathy. The longer the time from the event the less interest generated. Not many pit bulls around!...
IF you believe NIST and FEMA and the 9/11 Commission reports are complete, accurate and provide for the inclusion of every bit of evidence in an unbiased and pure scientific manner then they served you well. IF just one bit of evidence has been excluded that could point away from the conclusions reached then that suggests there could have been more than one gunman... so to speak.

Joey indicates that he's not biased and as soon as I give him another chewy he'll completely agree with me and discard any opposing opinion as being overly biased...
Silkies are really sharp furpeople... Mine is studying to be a chemical engineer...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
lol. kyle is still tapdancing to avoid answering any questions and event8horizon is still playing the role of General CnP Linkbot. "Truthers." What a riot. More like "Pretenders."

It is called Strategy! Why be pulled out into some tangential abyss of another's making when right there in front of every one is the issue... WTC 7 and NIST et. al.'s computations are not open to view regarding most of the conclusions reached. Just like the Towers. They conclude what they say is the most probable result of the fire induced collapse. The Truthers want to test their hypothesis by first evaluating the numbers and other criteria used to state their hypothesis is valid..

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
lol. kyle is still tapdancing to avoid answering any questions and event8horizon is still playing the role of General CnP Linkbot. "Truthers." What a riot. More like "Pretenders."

It is called Strategy! Why be pulled out into some tangential abyss of another's making when right there in front of every one is the issue... WTC 7 and NIST et. al.'s computations are not open to view regarding most of the conclusions reached. Just like the Towers. They conclude what they say is the most probable result of the fire induced collapse. The Truthers want to test their hypothesis by first evaluating the numbers and other criteria used to state their hypothesis is valid..

No, the truthers formed conclusions of govt conspiracy first and now look to support their conspiracy theories. When the evidence flatly contradicts their hypothesis (eyewitness testimony, expert reports, reenactments, scientific demonstrations, cell phone calls, video evidence, admissions by al qaeda, lack of explosives at the scene) they ignore it and focus on another "hole" in the official story, which doesn't claim to be perfect, merely the "best explanation" for what happened. And that's only what science can ever offer.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
lol. kyle is still tapdancing to avoid answering any questions and event8horizon is still playing the role of General CnP Linkbot. "Truthers." What a riot. More like "Pretenders."

It is called Strategy! Why be pulled out into some tangential abyss of another's making when right there in front of every one is the issue... WTC 7 and NIST et. al.'s computations are not open to view regarding most of the conclusions reached. Just like the Towers. They conclude what they say is the most probable result of the fire induced collapse. The Truthers want to test their hypothesis by first evaluating the numbers and other criteria used to state their hypothesis is valid..

No, the truthers formed conclusions of govt conspiracy first and now look to support their conspiracy theories. When the evidence flatly contradicts their hypothesis (eyewitness testimony, expert reports, reenactments, scientific demonstrations, cell phone calls, video evidence, admissions by al qaeda, lack of explosives at the scene) they ignore it and focus on another "hole" in the official story, which doesn't claim to be perfect, merely the "best explanation" for what happened. And that's only what science can ever offer.

First you gotta accept that there are levels of Trutherness. The full blow Truther believes there is a Government involved conspiracy and then the mildly myopic feel that some stuff excluded ought to be included and let the chips fall where they may..

You do recall or at least I recall Bin Laden at least on three occasions denied connection to 9/11. I'd have thought he'd claim it as his own baby right away... no idea why but just a thought.
The best science includes all the evidence and if new evidence is developed they include that as well... it may augment or dissolve the prior hypothesis.
I can't get over that quote of the NIST spokesman... his explanation for not looking for evidence... it is actually funny... I'm easily amused these days...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
You do recall or at least I recall Bin Laden at least on three occasions denied connection to 9/11. I'd have thought he'd claim it as his own baby right away... no idea why but just a thought.

Link to one of those occasions?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

All signs point to an aliean death ray

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I can't get over that quote of the NIST spokesman... his explanation for not looking for evidence... it is actually funny... I'm easily amused these days...

Maybe you should get over it. Here's the fuller quote:

"So why didn't we look for explosive residues in the towers?" Newman asks rhetorically. "Because there was no evidence saying go that way. There was a lot of evidence saying look at the impact of the plane, the loss of fire-proofing, the bowing of the perimeter beams, which was the final straw that broke the camel's back."

Even so, why not test debris?a relatively simple operation?to put the question fully behind and silence critics? Newman says NIST did calculate the quantity of thermite that would be needed?and found that it would require a tremendous amount in each column to get it to melt.

Newman acknowledges that NIST's response that it sees "no need" to test dust for any form of thermite won't satisfy critics, and adds: "We don't try to debate or argue with these folks because they have their opinions and what they believe is evidence, but to us it is counterproductive to engage in debate.

"We'd rather let the body of evidence we presented stand on its own merits. We feel this is a very good piece of work?in many ways pushing investigations way beyond what's gone before. Our work is to help strengthen buildings, and proof of the validity of our research is that most all our recommendations for changing building codes have been accepted by the international organization that models building codes. That wouldn't have happened if they doubted our findings."

You have 2 planes crash into a building, so you check to see whether that was likely responsible for the collapse. Every indicator is that it was. Which is probably why they didn't investigate the possibility of hoards of concrete devouring insects, or localized seismic shifts resulting from an orbiting satelite firing sonic beams at the towers, or other "possible" explanations.

 

[LunarRay]

Jonks,
I think if you can prove one plane you prove 4 planes. I talked to a 'truther' last night who said to me, "Rumsfeld had to get rid of evidence regarding 2 trillion dollars of funds the DoD couldn't find..." then he said, " the hole was almost circular at the Pentagon and very small with no wing nor vertical stabilizer marks and no marks on the ground leading up to this hole and guess what... the damage destroyed the files regarding the transactions to do with the 2 trillion."...
I've no idea about hole in the Pentagon or skid marks or some photos not released etc.. or where files related to the DoD 2 trillion were... I do recall the comment, though. That don't sway me cuz the plane went somewhere and I accept it went into the Pentagon...
IF someone can disprove 1 plane the can disprove 4 planes... it works both ways... But atm I see the first plane going into the Tower... the video and all the players react as I'd expect them to... and I can't find the folks who got on the plane anywhere.. Find a passenger in Duluth and I'll maybe buy into the 4 planes are a myth...

I do, however, have issues with WTC 7. Not that bits hit it from tower collapse and fires developed but back when it collapsed.. about 8:30 ish out here, we were still at work finalizing the 4 quarter plan... we all felt they did a great job bringing it down... must have been weakened by the fire was the theme the Engineers bandied about. So, they didn't feel the pull was out of order, rather, they felt the pull to avoid the Post Office and Verizon building getting damage was the issue. That and the stuff to the South on Vessy. When they learned some time later that it was not a controlled issue, I'd moved on but they sort of hung on to that notion and I expect they still do.. I thought someone probably saw a way to get rid of files and went in and lit them up... I still have a notion that happened by design but oh well... my issue is to do with looking at video and hearing how what I see is explained by fires alone.. I can't see it that way... I wish I could have some folks view the data NIST used to conclude all that so I can rid my mind of that bit... someday they will, I expect and until then to me it is a mystery..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: LunarRay
You do recall or at least I recall Bin Laden at least on three occasions denied connection to 9/11. I'd have thought he'd claim it as his own baby right away... no idea why but just a thought.

Link to one of those occasions?

I can't believe you don't recall the various videos of him denying it and then the video of him in a room apparently discussing it with others and taking the credit for it not in a video of him talking to the camera but in a room filled with his horde... I'll find them in time... but they were widely broadcast... at the time.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I can't get over that quote of the NIST spokesman... his explanation for not looking for evidence... it is actually funny... I'm easily amused these days...

Maybe you should get over it. Here's the fuller quote:

"So why didn't we look for explosive residues in the towers?" Newman asks rhetorically. "Because there was no evidence saying go that way. There was a lot of evidence saying look at the impact of the plane, the loss of fire-proofing, the bowing of the perimeter beams, which was the final straw that broke the camel's back."

Even so, why not test debris?a relatively simple operation?to put the question fully behind and silence critics? Newman says NIST did calculate the quantity of thermite that would be needed?and found that it would require a tremendous amount in each column to get it to melt.

Newman acknowledges that NIST's response that it sees "no need" to test dust for any form of thermite won't satisfy critics, and adds: "We don't try to debate or argue with these folks because they have their opinions and what they believe is evidence, but to us it is counterproductive to engage in debate.

"We'd rather let the body of evidence we presented stand on its own merits. We feel this is a very good piece of work?in many ways pushing investigations way beyond what's gone before. Our work is to help strengthen buildings, and proof of the validity of our research is that most all our recommendations for changing building codes have been accepted by the international organization that models building codes. That wouldn't have happened if they doubted our findings."

You have 2 planes crash into a building, so you check to see whether that was likely responsible for the collapse. Every indicator is that it was. Which is probably why they didn't investigate the possibility of hoards of concrete devouring insects, or localized seismic shifts resulting from an orbiting satelite firing sonic beams at the towers, or other "possible" explanations.

That's not the quotes that were quoted. That is apparently someone and Newman talking to what was quoted by the reporter.. I'm not sure but it ain't the quote I saw and found in the link Event8horizon provided.
I don't recall anything crashing into WTC 7 but bits from the Towers which had two planes directed into them by terrorists. You may have something there though... I wonder if a mini black hole could have passed through WTC 7 and provided that missing force Kyle is looking for... ? Wonder what the evidence of that might be...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: LunarRay
You do recall or at least I recall Bin Laden at least on three occasions denied connection to 9/11. I'd have thought he'd claim it as his own baby right away... no idea why but just a thought.

Link to one of those occasions?

I can't believe you don't recall the various videos of him denying it and then the video of him in a room apparently discussing it with others and taking the credit for it not in a video of him talking to the camera but in a room filled with his horde... I'll find them in time... but they were widely broadcast... at the time.

September 11, 2001 attacks

After initial denial, in 2004 Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.[78][79][80] The attacks involved the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 11, and American Airlines Flight 77; the subsequent destruction of those planes and the World Trade Center in New York City, New York; severe damage to The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia;[81] and the deaths of 2,974 people excluding the nineteen hijackers.[82] In response to the attacks, the United States launched a War on Terrorism to depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and capture al-Qaeda operatives, and several countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation to preclude future attacks. The CIA's Special Activities Division was given the lead in tracking down and killing or capturing bin Ladin.[83]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[84] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks.[85] Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.[86]

In a videotape recovered by US forces in November 2001 in Jalalabad, bin Laden was seen discussing the attack with Khaled al-Harbi in a way that indicates foreknowledge.[87] The tape was broadcast on various news networks on 13 December 2001. The merits of this translation have been disputed. Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."[88]

In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers.[79][89] In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the hijacking of the planes on September 11.[79]

According to the tapes, bin Laden claimed he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Center after watching the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War.[90]

In two other tapes aired by Al Jazeera in 2006, Osama bin Laden announces,

I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers ? I was responsible for entrusting the nineteen brothers ? with the raids [5 minute audiotape broadcast 23 May 2006],[91]

and is seen with Ramzi Binalshibh, as well as two of the 9/11 hijackers, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri, as they make preparations for the attacks (videotape broadcast 7 September 2006).[92]

 

[LunarRay]

"But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been ?high-order damage.? Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence ? ?Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet? ? applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.



But when asked whether it had, NIST said No. A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: ?[W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didn?t look for evidence of explosives?? Newman replied: ?Right, because there was no evidence of that.? ?But,? asked the reporter ?how can you know there?s no evidence if you don?t look for it first?? Newman replied: ?If you?re looking for something that isn?t there, you?re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers? money.? [29] (You couldn?t make this stuff up.)

When Shyam Sunder, who headed up NIST?s investigation of the WTC buildings, gave his press conference in August of 2008 ? at which he announced that ?the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery? ? he began by saying:

Before I tell you what we found, I?d like to tell you what we did not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. [30]

By making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NIST?s most important conclusion ? just as it had been NIST?s most important conclusion about the Twin Towers. However, although Sunder claimed that this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no scientific validity if it can be reached only by ignoring half the evidence."

this is the link event8horizon provided

 

[LunarRay]

Jonks,
You're fast... I was trying to figure out how to look for the actual links but guess that is ok.. I mean he did deny it and did fess up... I believe him when he said he did it..
.

I just now remembered a video of Taliban saying if the US provided proof they'd turn over Bin laden... right... well maybe that is why he denied it at first...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
"But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been ?high-order damage.? Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

I'm assuming, as with all rules, that those above are stated in the context where the cause of the 'high order damage' needs to be discovered. When you have the cause of 2 planes loaded with fuel crashing into the buildings, then it makes sense to see if such a collapse is consistent with that as the cause.

As Newman said, if thermyte was responsible, there'd need to be to thousands of pounds of explosives that were surreptitiously planted and hidden from detection, and this of course once again necessarily implicates a conspiracy involving the planes, foreknowledge, the pentagon strike, as well as the hundreds or thousands of other people all required to pull this thing off and remain completely silent about it.

And hey, lets be honest, if they tested for explosives and found none, how many truthers would give up the ghost? somewhere between zip and nada.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
lol. kyle is still tapdancing to avoid answering any questions and event8horizon is still playing the role of General CnP Linkbot. "Truthers." What a riot. More like "Pretenders."

It is called Strategy! Why be pulled out into some tangential abyss of another's making when right there in front of every one is the issue... WTC 7 and NIST et. al.'s computations are not open to view regarding most of the conclusions reached. Just like the Towers. They conclude what they say is the most probable result of the fire induced collapse. The Truthers want to test their hypothesis by first evaluating the numbers and other criteria used to state their hypothesis is valid..

Huh? NIST's computations are indeed available and open for all to peruse.

Dig on in.

kyle is not proffering any numbers because he can't. His claim is pure bs that would never withstand the least amount of scrutiny and just about anyone in here with a reasonable handle on physics recognizes that fact. Even kyle knows it, which is why he flat out refuses to produce the math in the first place. He'd get promptly owned if he ever tried. So instead all we get is a bunch of song & dance and handwaving from him. Sheesh, Mariah Carey herself could take handwaving lessons from him.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
"But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been ?high-order damage.? Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

I'm assuming, as with all rules, that those above are stated in the context where the cause of the 'high order damage' needs to be discovered. When you have the cause of 2 planes loaded with fuel crashing into the buildings, then it makes sense to see if such a collapse is consistent with that as the cause.

As Newman said, if thermyte was responsible, there'd need to be to thousands of pounds of explosives that were surreptitiously planted and hidden from detection, and this of course once again necessarily implicates a conspiracy involving the planes, foreknowledge, the pentagon strike, as well as the hundreds or thousands of other people all required to pull this thing off and remain completely silent about it.

And hey, lets be honest, if they tested for explosives and found none, how many truthers would give up the ghost? somewhere between zip and nada.

Not sure which is the horsey and which is the cart here.. but, we see..

A) Builder claims building can take two 707 hits. (sometime before the events of 9/11)

B) Planes hit buildings (someone decided builder wrong before looking for evidence)

C) No look see for evidence cuz it not relevant to the issue even if found but none there cuz they didn't look but some found there by Truthers but truthers must lie cuz planes only did it and NIST proved that by saying so.

D) Newman deduces from no evidence but his own deduction and the implication which would mean why look see cuz IF found the government is involved and that can't be confirms it.
A detective looks for evidence, it is the Lawyer who construes it to fit his theory but the scientist fits his theory to be in concert with the evidence...

It is all about how you want to view the issue... I see Tower building hit... If it makes sense that what I see is the result of plane hit and fire.. I'm fine with it... I'm fine with the Towers atm cuz I can't calculate if they can't fall that way.. I've not seen any calculations on the total event of collapse... I tried to say earlier in a post that I figure after the hit and without fire 70% of the vertical Resistance held off 100% of the mass above it.. but think the only response was my thinking is in error.. ok.. I need more info. I calculated that the 15 story bloc had about 2 gjoules of potential energy while it sat up there and needed about 230 mjoules to crush the first floor concrete into itty bits (assuming the central core didn't interfere with a sorta 1 story free fall iow no resistance for the first flop down).

As I said earlier in a post, some Truthers are just using 9/11 to further their other agenda which is our Government is evil... It may be, but I'm not aware of it being so as a general rule. They say look at this or that event.. see... Government will do anything! Perhaps it or they, the Government, will, but I'm not aware of it in this case.
However!!! There are some Truthers who are looking at finding the actual cause of events and don't think Planes and fire alone did it and can't stand it when protocol is not followed and have Government (NIST) call it a scientific method.

I will say one thing... If I am tasked with developing a model into which actual historic data is fed in and the resulting out put does not mirror the actual historic outcome, I have to go in and adjust my al gore rhythms, or functions or assumptions and relationsips... something anyhow... until it does... then I'll know reasonably well that with all other things being equal my model 'works'.. Does NIST's?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
kyle is not proffering any numbers because he can't. His claim is pure bs that would never withstand the least amount of scrutiny and just about anyone in here with a reasonable handle on physics recognizes that fact. Even kyle knows it, which is why he flat out refuses to produce the math in the first place. He'd get promptly owned if he ever tried. So instead all we get is a bunch of song & dance and handwaving from him. Sheesh, Mariah Carey herself could take handwaving lessons from him.

I'll look and see if that is what I'm talking about... but that aside, she has way too many octaves and way bigger over the shoulder boulder holders than can be computed by my mind... over time...