NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[Mark F]

You readily admit that certain interests in the U.S. are willing to send soldiers into battle using fabricated pretenses, knowing this will cause thousands of them to be maimed and killed and many civilian fatalities where the war occurs, but think it is too preposterous to believe that they would kill thousands of civilians to provide a false reason for the war.

In case you don't know it, fraudulently putting someone in a situation where they can be and are killed is murder, so these interests who fabricated a reason for the war are indeed guilty of murder. Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book showing why this is true and he shows that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al are indeed guilty of murder for fraudulently initiating the invasion of Iraq.

What you are saying is like assuming that these killers were only willing to shoot someone to get what they want and that they would never poison anyone to get it if necessary.

It is clear that there are serious logic errors in your thinking. You need to think harder to clear them up.

Speaking of serious logic errors in thinking - ideologues make lousy investigators. No wonder you come to such fundamentally flawed conclusions about what happened on 9/11.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Speaking of serious logic errors in thinking - ideologues make lousy investigators. No wonder you come to such fundamentally flawed conclusions about what happened on 9/11.

I have shown the engineering case against the present official story for the building collapses, and it was only after seeing its falsehood that I looked at motive, not the other way around.

You on the other hand have shown no ability to defend the official story in a scientific way. It would seem the term ideologue applies perfectly to you, since you can't even defend what you say you believe in.

 

[mike2810]

I have shown the engineering case against the present official story for the building collapses, and it was only after seeing its falsehood that I looked at motive, not the other way around.

You on the other hand have shown no ability to defend the official story in a scientific way. It would seem the term ideologue applies perfectly to you, since you can't even defend what you say you believe in.

Have you shown that a fire induced collapse is impossible or only the official explanation? You say fires could not have caused the collapse. Seems there are papers out there that say fire could, but not as the official report described.

There are those who accept a fire induced collapse as the cause of the wtc1,2,7 without accepting 100% of all of the details of the official report.

We all know CD can take a building down. For a CD explanation to be accepted the details really need to be presented. So far, I have yet to see a clear concise explantion on CD.
Even the type of explosives cannot be agreed upon.

People who link the fire induced collapse to only the official story is similiar of linking CD to only neutron bombs.

IMO, the official story was one attempt to explain. You disagree with it. It now becomes your issue to prove CD with all the details.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Have you shown that a fire induced collapse is impossible or only the official explanation? You say fires could not have caused the collapse. Seems there are papers out there that say fire could, but not as the official report described.

There are those who accept a fire induced collapse as the cause of the wtc1,2,7 without accepting 100% of all of the details of the official report.

We all know CD can take a building down. For a CD explanation to be accepted the details really need to be presented. So far, I have yet to see a clear concise explantion on CD.
Even the type of explosives cannot be agreed upon.

People who link the fire induced collapse to only the official story is similiar of linking CD to only neutron bombs.

IMO, the official story was one attempt to explain. You disagree with it. It now becomes your issue to prove CD with all the details.

I know of no paper that shows how a symmetric free fall collapse could be caused by fire. The collapse of WTC 7 has not been formally explained by anyone, although it is clear that controlled demolition is the only viable explanation.

The pertinent structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report have discredited it and a new investigation is warranted and whether or not you know it, it is the government's responsibility, not mine.

 

[Fledermaus]

I know of no paper that shows how a symmetric free fall collapse could be caused by fire. The collapse of WTC 7 has not been formally explained by anyone.

The pertinent structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report have discredited it and a new investigation is warranted. Controlled demolition is really the only viable explanation.

Except that it is NOT supported by the EVIDENCE.

No trace of explosives.

No explosive blast consistent with a CD.

No overpressure consistent with a CD.

No seismic event consistent with a CD.

No logical explanation for how explosives survived the fires in WTC7 and fires and impact in the towers.

 

[Fledermaus]

BTW - Tony. You STILL haven't explained how freefall for a portion of the exterior = Controlled Demolition

 

[Tony Szamboti]

BTW - Tony. You STILL haven't explained how freefall for a portion of the exterior = Controlled Demolition

If you need it explained to you then you wouldn't understand it if it was.

 

[Fledermaus]

If you need it explained to you then you wouldn't understand it if it was.

What a quaint NON-ANSWER.

So there is NO possible explanation other than non-existent explosives, eh?

Or has "9/11 truth" stumbled upon the holy grail of demolition? HUSH-A-BOOM explosives? HUSH-A-BOOM explosives that are immune to heat?

Is that your take?

 

[mike2810]

I know of no paper that shows how a symmetric free fall collapse could be caused by fire. The collapse of WTC 7 has not been formally explained by anyone, although it is clear that controlled demolition is the only viable explanation.

The pertinent structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report have discredited it and a new investigation is warranted and whether or not you know it, it is the government's responsibility, not mine.

So if I say your paper(s) are false. It is up to you to prove the statement wrong, not for me to prove it is correct. Your stance is reverse burden of proof.


I do not share your "it is clear that controlled demolition is the only viable explanation." for wtc7 or wt1,2.

So if the govt. does another investigation on the wt1,2,7 and come to the same conclusion of fire induced collapse would you accept it?

Or would it just be food for more CT's. The problem I see is no new investigation is going to settle the issue. new CT's will spring up.

The problem is the govt cannot be involved in any investigation. If the conclusion is not what some what to hear, the cry of cover up and CT will ring loud and clear.
If it is made up of only those who support alternative explanations (you, DRG, Jones, et.al), there would be those who will say the deck is stacked the other way.

Time to move on.

Last. Then since according to you fire could not have caused the collapse. guess we have no need for new building codes. One cannot design to stop a CD.:mrgreen:

 

[Mark F]

If you need it explained to you then you wouldn't understand it if it was.

That attitude is going to go over soooooo well with the real structural engineers, physicists and demolition experts on the new investigation blue ribbon panel. Its a good thing for you the Pepper letter is going nowhere.

 

[Thoreau72]

Sorry, but turnabout is not fair play here, as you have nothing to play with. The NIST WTC 7 report has been discredited by the revelations of the structural feature omissions.

Bugliosi is great! I read his book about Charles Manson all those years ago.

Also, Francis Boyle is working those war crime cases. There are many guilty players.

 

[Thoreau72]

I have shown the engineering case against the present official story for the building collapses, and it was only after seeing its falsehood that I looked at motive, not the other way around.

You on the other hand have shown no ability to defend the official story in a scientific way. It would seem the term ideologue applies perfectly to you, since you can't even defend what you say you believe in.

Cannot even DEFINE what he believes in. Church of the Poisoned Mind?

 

[Fledermaus]

Cannot even DEFINE what he believes in. Church of the Poisoned Mind?

Wow...

This coming from someone who cannot/will not present an intelligent counter-theory.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So far, I have yet to see a clear concise explantion on CD.

so fine mike give us an example of what you would see as a clear concise explanation of a CD

Give us a little peek at your peg-in-hole requirements that you use to make the determination one way or the other.

 

[KokomoJojo]

If you need it explained to you then you wouldn't understand it if it was.

Thats a big problem, in that certain people, most often debunkers, with no physics background or understanding what so ever get in way over the head and expect to have their baseless preconceived notions overturned with physics when they do not have the means to understand it in the first place. They think truthers are miracle workers and can make them drink water when their mouths are sewn shut. LOL

There is a lot of that out here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So if the govt. does another investigation on the wt1,2,7 and come to the same conclusion of fire induced collapse would you accept it?

Or would it just be food for more CT's. The problem I see is no new investigation is going to settle the issue. new CT's will spring up.

The problem is the govt cannot be involved in any investigation. If the conclusion is not what some what to hear, the cry of cover up and CT will ring loud and clear.
If it is made up of only those who support alternative explanations (you, DRG, Jones, et.al), there would be those who will say the deck is stacked the other way.

Time to move on.

Last. Then since according to you fire could not have caused the collapse. guess we have no need for new building codes. One cannot design to stop a CD.:mrgreen:

If the government could explain the collapse of WTC 7 as being due to fire without having to omit pertinent structural features I would accept it. The problem is they can't, or they wouldn't have omitted those items to begin with, so the reality is that it was not fire that caused the collapse.

The building codes have not changed structurally.

 

[Fledermaus]

If the government could explain the collapse of WTC 7 as being due to fire without having to omit pertinent structural features I would accept it. The problem is they can't, or they wouldn't have omitted those items to begin with, so the reality is that it was not fire that caused the collapse.

The building codes have not changed structurally.

NON-SEQUITUR ALERT... NON-SEQUITUR ALERT... NON-SEQUITUR ALERT...

If the NIST never presented a report it would have ZERO effect on whether or not WTC7 collapsed due to fire. (CLUE: It did)

BTW - you still haven't answered my questions.

Nor have you explained how HUSH-A-BOOM explosives work....

 

[mike2810]

so fine mike give us an example of what you would see as a clear concise explanation of a CD

Give us a little peek at your peg-in-hole requirements that you use to make the determination one way or the other.

not mine to do. (trying reverse it back on me). See, you just proved you and others can't put out a clear concise CD explanation.

Why don't you look at Prager's work in the same detail as you do the official story and report back.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

not mine to do. (trying reverse it back on me). See, you just proved you and others can't put out a clear concise CD explanation.

Why don't you look at Prager's work in the same detail as you do the official story and report back.

Mike, the collapse of WTC 7 cannot be replicated with fire as a cause, but it can be done easily by first taking down the east penthouse high in the building and then taking out the core columns starting from their center outward from the 7th to the 14th floor.

To deny the obviousness of the demolition of the building and to at least put up a pretense of reasonableness would actually take work. Don't you get tired?

 

[NWO_Spook]

The Pepper letter very explicitly shows that inclusion of the pertinent structural features omitted from the NIST WTC 7 report would preclude the initiation failures alleged in the report and without these failures the report is baseless.

Remember, the NIST model was only that-a model. A truly accurate account of what went on inside that building prior to its collapse will forever remain unknown owing to the variables, and another investigation won't alter that position.

The building fell in a symmetric free fall for over 100 feet and it is ridiculous for you to attempt to explain that by simply saying that debris damage and fires caused the collapse.

And the charge of a controlled demolition is in no way ridiculous? If you re-examine the premise behind the CD story with as much objectivity as one can muster, it doesn't make any sense and defies reason. The symmetric free-fall phenomenon doesn't support the CD claim, and the belief in its significance obfuscates the flawed logic of the truther premise.

As far as what I expect from a new investigation is a plausible explanation, which we have not received yet.

To you and the fringe element, perhaps, but a new investigation won't supply the answers you seek. How could it?

The complete collapse of a building the size of WTC 7 (which had 3/4 the volume of the Empire State building) is not a trivial issue, and it isn't just a few fringe theorists who are saying we don't have the truth of the matter yet, especially after seeing the revelations of impropriety (due to the discovery of the omitted stiffeners and lateral support beams and distortion of the girder's seat width) in the NIST report.

The allegations of impropriety are merely a weak and transparent attempt to discredit NIST, which have not been demonstrated adequately for most reasonable individuals. The 9/11 truth movement cannot prove the irrational theories it posits, therefore, the next step is an effort to discredit the investigations. The arguments from popularity and incredulity don't really wash with me, and I know quite well that there is only a minority behind this effort and the 'tens of millions' figure is merely another fantasy among the growing anthology of truther hyperbole. Let's maintain perspective while discussing this issue for once, as too many get caught up in the hysteria generated by the propaganda.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Remember, the NIST model was only that-a model. A truly accurate account of what went on inside that building prior to its collapse will forever remain unknown owing to the variables, and another investigation won't alter that position.

If the model was made to replicate the actual observations it would tell us a lot about what went on.

And the charge of a controlled demolition is in no way ridiculous? If you re-examine the premise behind the CD story with as much objectivity as one can muster, it doesn't make any sense and defies reason. The symmetric free-fall phenomenon doesn't support the CD claim, and the belief in its significance obfuscates the flawed logic of the truther premise.

No, the charge of controlled demolition is based on observation of the dynamics of the collapse.

To you and the fringe element, perhaps, but a new investigation won't supply the answers you seek. How could it?

It can certainly supply the answers. Being honest is all that is necessary.

The allegations of impropriety are merely a weak and transparent attempt to discredit NIST, which have not been demonstrated adequately for most reasonable individuals. The 9/11 truth movement cannot prove the irrational theories it posits, therefore, the next step is an effort to discredit the investigations. The arguments from popularity and incredulity doesn't really wash with me, and I know quite well that is only a minority behind this effort and the 'tens of millions' figure is merely another fantasy among the growing anthology of truther hyperbole. Let's maintain perspective while discussing this issue, as too many get caught up in the hysteria generated by the propaganda

The allegations of impropriety in the NIST WTC 7 report are actually quite strong and are scientifically based, as seen in the Pepper letter.

 

[NWO_Spook]

If the model was made to replicate the actual observations it would tell us a lot about what went on.

Despite the variables?

No, the charge of controlled demolition is based on observation of the dynamics of the collapse.

That is an obviously irrational conclusion, so one must look for other factors before positing such an obviously specious premise.

It can certainly supply the answers. Being honest is all that is necessary.

How so? Your opinion regarding the dishonesty of the agency is merely that, a biased opinion and still has not been demonstrated adequately for those of a reasonable temperament.

The allegations of impropriety in the NIST WTC 7 report are actually quite strong and are scientifically based, as seen in the Pepper letter.

No, that does not demonstrate impropriety. How can an educated man such as yourself arrive at such a conclusion without recognising the bias required to formulate such an hypothesis from the evidence given?

 

[mike2810]

Mike, the collapse of WTC 7 cannot be replicated with fire as a cause, but it can be done easily by first taking down the east penthouse high in the building and then taking out the core columns starting from their center outward from the 7th to the 14th floor.

To deny the obviousness of the demolition of the building and to at least put up a pretense of reasonableness would actually take work. Don't you get tired?

no, do you get tired?
I have read your work and others that I can find on the internet.

Look Tony. Yes, CD can take down building. There I said it again.
Now. I expect the same details that you find at fault about a fire induced collapse for a CD explanation.

It is easy to say that if explosives blew out X, the building would fall.

When can we see the report that explains who did it, what type of explosives, where they were planted, how long to prep the building, etc. This all has to be backed up by evidence.

So in Nov 2007 Structure Mag published a possible collapse explanation of WTC7. Are you saying they lied?
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

 

[NWO_Spook]

Now. I expect the same details that you find at fault about a fire induced collapse for a CD explanation.

It is easy to say that if explosives blew out X, the building would fall.

When can we see the report that explains who did it, what type of explosives, where they were planted, how long to prep the building, etc. This all has to be backed up by evidence.

This is the rub. How can one stand behind the CD premise owing to the implausibility of the reason, the logistics of the preparation and ensuring the water supply was disabled, etc.? It smacks of a disconnection to reality. The premise is specious to the extreme, so it's time for truthers to abandon that notion owing to the ridiculous nature of the idea.

 

[mike2810]

This is the rub. How can one stand behind the CD premise owing to the implausibility of the reason, the logistics of the preparation and ensuring the water supply was disabled, etc.? It smacks of a disconnection to reality. The premise is specious to the extreme, so it's time for truthers to abandon that notion owing to the ridiculous nature of the idea.

Tony asked if I ever get tired. I lied. :mrgreen: I get tired of the constant reversal of proof ploys.

CD crowd.

Lay out your explanation and evidence. And it should be in detail.