So NIST lied about the failure mechanism of WTC 7 in the 911 Official Report?

[KokomoJojo]

The whole "bust the NIST for screwing up the Column 79 fiasco" is a distraction
from the REAL business at hand, and that is from the video of the "collapse" of WTC7
the ONLY conclusion that has anything going for it at all, is a controlled demolition.
Therefore, it is back to the one who first asserted that WTC7 fell as a result of fires,
to PROVE that indeed the structure could have fallen in the manner observed, without
any help from malicious human intervention.

So far, the NIST has proved nothing, and the whole debate about Column 79 is a smokescreen.
Lets get to the main event here, why is it that the fundamental data isn't being considered in
evidence, that is the video of the falling building? This is truly amazing that the mainstream
media has been able to steer public perception away from examining the very bit that would
show beyond any doubt that WTC7 was intentionally destroyed not simply a victim of "office fires".

but thats what the government does, they cherry pick data like the debumkers.

 

[Mark F]

The whole "bust the NIST for screwing up the Column 79 fiasco" is a distraction
from the REAL business at hand,...

You give this issue too much credit. It doesn't even rate high enough to be a distraction since there is no substance to the allegation.

...and that is from the video of the "collapse" of WTC7
the ONLY conclusion that has anything going for it at all, is a controlled demolition.

This is false. The correct thing to say would be that according to CATIwampus the only conclusion that can be reached from the video is CD. Happily the rest of us don't rely on one piece of evidence alone and we also understand that it is the nature of a collapsing structure to fall in the direction of gravity thus there is no reason to suspect that two similar structures collapsing with different initiating mechanisms to be vastly different in appearance of how they fall. Proving CD requires a lot more than watching 16 seconds of video. You really need to start moving past just video evidence if you want to prove your case. Start at about 10:20 am and then account for everything that happened from then until 5:20pm.

Therefore, it is back to the one who first asserted that WTC7 fell as a result of fires,
to PROVE that indeed the structure could have fallen in the manner observed, without
any help from malicious human intervention.

You are reversing the burden of proof.

That 7 World Trade Center collapsed due to the effects of prolonged un-fought fires is the null hypothesis and no one as yet has come close to falsifying it.
1. We know that the collapse of 1 World Trade showered 7 World Trade with thousands of tons of burning debris causing significant physical damage to the SW facade of the structure and initiating fires on multiple floors that spread throughout the day
2. We know that with the death of 343 firefighters, the injuring of scores more and the destruction of their equipment combined with the lack of water pressure there was no effective fire fighting or fire suppression effort in 7 WTC
3. We know steel structures perform poorly under prolonged exposure to fire.
4. We know that by early afternoon 7 WTC was declared fully involved in fire and there were reports the building was starting to creak and moan, a bulge had developed in one side of the structure and it was starting to lean - all clear and obvious signs of impending collapse.
5. We know that by mid-afternoon city engineers had declared 7 unsafe and in danger of imminent collapse and the area around the structure was evacuated, severely hampering the urgent rescue and recovery efforts.
6. We know that around 5:20 pm after burning un-checked for 7 hours the East Mechanical Penthouse tilted, then fell which means Column 79 failed.
7. We know the failure of Column 79 initiated a progressive series of failures which caused the collapse of the interior of 7 WTC followed by the outer curtain wall (the part obvious in the videos)

Whether or not NIST was correct about girder walk-off or JSanderO is right about a failure at TT1 is really of only academic interest to engineers. Either is a plausible hypothesis (not "proof" - no one ever said proof) for the initiating collapse mechanism and you still have fire induced collapse either way. So disproving NIST does nothing to prove CD.

To prove CD you need to provide an alternative hypothesis that explains all the observations described above with physical evidence for CD. "Free-fall and "the curtain wall held its shape" don't cut it. If for example you want - as it seems you do - to claim Column 79 did not fail you have to prove the East Mechanical Penthouse did not tilt and then fall.

Good luck with that.

Why you would even want to pursue that boggles the mind as a Column 79 failure does not by itself rule out CD. I imagine that did not occur to you.

So, do you have a hypothesis that better explains the above observations using CD?

 

[KokomoJojo]

You give this issue too much credit.

You forgot to explain wow anyone can give criminal fraud too much credit?

ELaborate please/.

 

[KokomoJojo]

edited; suffice to say we know a lot of things

Whether or not NIST was correct about girder walk-off or JSanderO is right about a failure at TT1 is really of only academic interest to engineers. Either is a plausible hypothesis (not "proof" - no one ever said proof) for the initiating collapse mechanism and you still have fire induced collapse either way. So disproving NIST does nothing to prove CD.

To prove CD you need to provide an alternative hypothesis that explains all the observations described above with physical evidence for CD. "Free-fall and "the curtain wall held its shape" don't cut it. If for example you want - as it seems you do - to claim Column 79 did not fail you have to prove the East Mechanical Penthouse did not tilt and then fall.

Good luck with that.

Why you would even want to pursue that boggles the mind as a Column 79 failure does not by itself rule out CD. I imagine that did not occur to you.

So, do you have a hypothesis that better explains the above observations using CD?

yep it can only be proof is NIST or the creator of the hypothesis proves it. They in fact already proved it could not happen the way they claimed it. NIst could not obtain a fea model that freefell.

YOu cannot measure freefall against something you cannot see, you cannot see the penthouse below the roofline.

The null hypothesis is that freefall has no supporting structure below it which cannot occur in nature.

 

[Mark F]

yep it can only be proof is NIST or the creator of the hypothesis proves it. They in fact already proved it could not happen the way they claimed it. NIst could not obtain a fea model that freefell.

YOu cannot measure freefall against something you cannot see, you cannot see the penthouse below the roofline.

The null hypothesis is that freefall has no supporting structure below it which cannot occur in nature.

Asked and answered about 100 times. Free-fall of the curtain wall near the end of the collapse event is irrelevant to the cause of the collapse.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Asked and ^ answered about 100 times. Free-fall of the curtain wall near the end of the collapse event is irrelevant to the cause of the collapse.

you forgot the word "frivolously"

 

[ozeco41]

Asked ^ and answered about 100 times. Free-fall of the curtain wall near the end of the collapse event is irrelevant to the cause of the collapse.

you forgot the word "frivolously"

He did forget it. You put it in the wrong place.

FTFY

 

[CATiwampus]

Question about this whole "column 79" thing
how was it determined that indeed "column 79" did fail at the start of the sequence?
was steel recovered from the site that had numbers on the columns such that each
column could be identified? Really, I'm curious to know.

 

[ozeco41]

Question about this whole "column 79" thing
how was it determined that indeed "column 79" did fail at the start of the sequence?

"did fail" is easy. The East Penthouse fell relatively early in the global collapse phase. Col 79 was under EPH so it must have failed - together with everything else under EPH - because if EPH fell through that space nothing could still have been there after the fall. "at the start" is harder - your usual lack of explicit clarity. Helped or hindered somewhat by NIST who used the expression "initiated". Bad choice of words. No way could Col 79 have been the first thing to fail - my proof posted several times - so it could not have been the first thing in the sequence which "initiated" everything else which followed. As the biggest column it was certainly a "key player" possible the "most significant" but not "initiator".

...was steel recovered from the site that had numbers on the columns such that each column could be identified?

Yes the components of WTC 7 were numbered to indicate the sequence in which the items were to fail during the CD. To fool debunkers the numbers were randomly mixed so the actual sequence was not the numeric sequence. Then the marking paint has two redundant mechanisms built in - it self destructed under either fire or exposure to UV. It is rumoured but not AFAIK confirmed that a third geolocation self destruct was also build in - if the steel travelled further west that the 0 Longitude the numbers also disappeared - thus allowing for shipping to China without risk of oriental inquisitiveness decoding the collapse mechanism.

Really, I'm curious to know.

You have said that before. If you ever decide to get serious I can explain some things for you. But not before.

 

[KokomoJojo]

He did forget it. You put it in the wrong place.

FTFY

haha too funny

 

[CATiwampus]

Really, I'm curious to know.

You have said that before. If you ever decide to get serious I can explain some things for you. But not before.

So it comes down to, I have to convince the magical creature who posts as "ozeco41"
that I'm really serious about getting answers before he will expend his valuable time
explaining it to me oh my!

My take on the whole thing, this Column 79 story was invented to function as a
smoke screen to avoid addressing the obvious fact that the falling of WTC7 in the
manner that it did could only be the product of some sort of Malicious human intervention.
Can anybody cite an example of any building that did what WTC7 did, and without being CD?

The damning evidence is right in full view of anybody who cares to look.

 

[Mark F]

Really, I'm curious to know.

So it comes down to, I have to convince the magical creature who posts as "ozeco41"
that I'm really serious about getting answers before he will expend his valuable time
explaining it to me oh my!

My take on the whole thing, this Column 79 story was invented to function as a
smoke screen to avoid addressing the obvious fact that the falling of WTC7 in the
manner that it did could only be the product of some sort of Malicious human intervention.
Can anybody cite an example of any building that did what WTC7 did, and without being CD?

The damning evidence is right in full view of anybody who cares to look.

Actually, you are illustrating what Oz means about "being serious".

Are you seriously trying to allege that there was no failure of Column 79 and therefore the tilt and collapse of the East Mechanical Penthouse we can all clearly see in the video's did not occur? Because if you are saying that you are not serious.

Even though I pointed this out to you yesterday it apparently still does not occur to you that the collapse of a single column just indicates the collapse of a single column. It does nothing for or against your notion of CD (hint: you could incorporate Col 79 into your CD hypothesis whenever you get around to having a CD hypothesis). Again, you are not being serious because you don't listen to anyone and you don't want to learn about anything that happened outside of your narrow view of free-fall = CD and the building held its shape.

 

[CATiwampus]

Actually, you are illustrating what Oz means about "being serious".

Are you seriously trying to allege that there was no failure of Column 79 and therefore the tilt and collapse of the East Mechanical Penthouse we can all clearly see in the video's did not occur? Because if you are saying that you are not serious.

Even though I pointed this out to you yesterday it apparently still does not occur to you that the collapse of a single column just indicates the collapse of a single column. It does nothing for or against your notion of CD (hint: you could incorporate Col 79 into your CD hypothesis whenever you get around to having a CD hypothesis). Again, you are not being serious because you don't listen to anyone and you don't want to learn about anything that happened outside of your narrow view of free-fall = CD and the building held its shape.

I did not say that there wasn't any failure of Column 79,
what I said was that the fall of WTC7 in the manner that it was observed to have done,
is clearly an indication of malicious human intervention, the building drops & keeps its shape,
despite claims to the contrary, the video is very clear on this the north & west walls drop
while keeping shape. This is clearly the work of malicious human intervention.

Do tell, how is it that you can claim free-fall & keeps its shape does NOT = CD?

 

[ozeco41]

... (hint: you could incorporate Col 79 into your CD hypothesis whenever you get around to having a CD hypothesis)...

Actually one of the four models NIST did is a good starting point for a CD attack via Col 79. (Trust a military engineer to spot that one hey )

... Again, you are not being serious because you don't listen to anyone and you don't want to learn about anything that happened outside of your narrow view of free-fall = CD and the building held its shape.

Yes. The lack of seriousness is inherent in his posts. AND has nothing to do with persuading me - or any of his personal attacks on me. I'm just the competent person who keeps offering to help him "when he gets serious" AND who keeps ignoring the insults and snide comments.

 

[CATiwampus]

.....

Exactly what part of
Building keeps its shape while falling at free-fall
do you not get as proof that there was malicious human intervention here?
the fact is, that in order to achieve the result, WTC7 would have to experience
the total removal of ALL of the support out from under the falling walls, and at the same time.

Nobody can provide a precedent building structural failure that is even similar to WTC7
and all anybody can do is claim special circumstances because it was a terrorist attack.

You think I don't understand anything here, but really I understand a total FRAUD
when I see it and the official story of 9/11 = FRAUD.

 

[Mark F]

Exactly what part of
Building keeps its shape while falling at free-fall
do you not get as proof that there was malicious human intervention here?

Even if true (which it isn't) please give us the technical reason why the loss of column support due to some mechanism other than blowing them up with explosives can not possibly cause this phenomena? Do the columns know why they failed and behave differently according to different failure mechanisms?

the fact is, that in order to achieve the result, WTC7 would have to experience
the total removal of ALL of the support out from under the falling walls, and at the same time.

Why? We are talking about an un-braced curtain wall here. The building interior collapsed before it did. How many hundreds of times does this have to be explained?

Nobody can provide a precedent building structural failure that is even similar to WTC7

So what? Prior to the Wright Brothers nobody could provide a precedent for powered heavier than air flight. What's your point?

and all anybody can do is claim special circumstances because it was a terrorist attack.

Truth hurts

ou think I don't understand anything here, but really I understand a total FRAUD
when I see it and the official story of 9/11 = FRAUD.

No. I know you don't understand anything. We go over the same stuff with you over and over and you still keep getting it wrong. We give you information that would actually help your case and you ignore it. Just the same tired old mantra's over and over again with no substance.

 

[CATiwampus]

Even if true (which it isn't) please give us the technical reason why the loss of column support due to some mechanism other than blowing them up with explosives can not possibly cause this phenomena? Do the columns know why they failed and behave differently according to different failure mechanisms?

what we are observing here
is the total removal of support out from under a wall that
is 330 ft across and so for that space, ALL of the support
would have had to be removed all at the same time.

 

[Mark F]

what we are observing here
is the total removal of support out from under a wall that
is 330 ft across and so for that space, ALL of the support
would have had to be removed all at the same time.

It is a CURTAIN WALL, formerly held up by a building that is no longer there. I would submit that pretty much ALL of the support for that curtain wall was removed, which is why it fell. That tells us nothing about what caused the building to fall. Stop thinking the curtain wall and the building are moving together. They aren't. All the truly exciting stuff happens before the curtain wall moves.

Will there be a point in our lifetimes when you figure out what is relevant so we can talk about that instead?

 

[ozeco41]

...Will there be a point in our lifetimes when you figure out what is relevant so we can talk about that instead?

If it happens it will also be the time when he decides to get serious.

 

[CATiwampus]

It is a CURTAIN WALL, formerly held up by a building that is no longer there. I would submit that pretty much ALL of the support for that curtain wall was removed, which is why it fell. That tells us nothing about what caused the building to fall. Stop thinking the curtain wall and the building are moving together. They aren't. All the truly exciting stuff happens before the curtain wall moves.

Will there be a point in our lifetimes when you figure out what is relevant so we can talk about that instead?

If what we saw on the video is a Curtain wall, and there was virtually no structure behind it,
what was holding it up? & why did whatever was holding it up, let go all at the same time?

 

[Tamborine man]

It is a CURTAIN WALL, formerly held up by a building that is no longer there. I would submit that pretty much ALL of the support for that curtain wall was removed, which is why it fell. That tells us nothing about what caused the building to fall. Stop thinking the curtain wall and the building are moving together. They aren't. All the truly exciting stuff happens before the curtain wall moves.

Will there be a point in our lifetimes when you figure out what is relevant so we can talk about that instead?

Let us imagine WTC7 is now standing there but without the perimeter walls. They have all been removed.

All we now see, is the roof with penthouse, all floors, all columns, stairs, lifts, all contents, plus the sporadic

internal fires wherever they are.

Could you please take us through, step by step, what you think happened from the moment the initiation

of the collapse started, and the sequence of events that subsequently took place down to the 2.25 sec.

free-fall period?

This would be much appreciated.

Cheers

 

[mike2810]

Tamborine man.

You may diss the site but have you looked at the discussion at The 9/11 Forum • View forum - WTC7 ?

One explanation published was done by Structure Mag. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Many have asked for specifics on controlled demolition of wtc 1, 2, and 7. The request for specifics and no one to date has answered.
I find it interesting you wanting very detailed explanation of the collapse by fire , yet seem to brush off providing detail explanation of CD.

Do you have any source that has detailed explanation of the CD of WTC 7?

 

[Tamborine man]

Tamborine man.

You may diss the site but have you looked at the discussion at The 9/11 Forum • View forum - WTC7 ?

One explanation published was done by Structure Mag. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Many have asked for specifics on controlled demolition of wtc 1, 2, and 7. The request for specifics and no one to date has answered.
I find it interesting you wanting very detailed explanation of the collapse by fire , yet seem to brush off providing detail explanation of CD.

Do you have any source that has detailed explanation of the CD of WTC 7?

I was asking Mark F personally what HE thinks happened.

NOT what other people think or imagine it to be.

As said, HIS personal view would still be appreciated.

But if you, mike 2810, would like to chime in as well,

that would be appreciated too.

Cheers

 

[mike2810]

I was asking Mark F personally what HE thinks happened.

NOT what other people think or imagine it to be.

As said, HIS personal view would still be appreciated.

But if you, mike 2810, would like to chime in as well,

that would be appreciated too.

Cheers

So your just going to post jabs at other posters.

What is the explanation you accept for the collapse of WTC7?

 

[KokomoJojo]

.....

Exactly what part of
Building keeps its shape while falling at free-fall
do you not get as proof that there was malicious human intervention here?
the fact is, that in order to achieve the result, WTC7 would have to experience
the total removal of ALL of the support out from under the falling walls, and at the same time.

Nobody can provide a precedent building structural failure that is even similar to WTC7
and all anybody can do is claim special circumstances because it was a terrorist attack.

You think I don't understand anything here, but really I understand a total FRAUD
when I see it and the official story of 9/11 = FRAUD.

Thats just another lame tactic used by these people to try and control the debate and generate suspense before the big let down when they dump their red herrings all over the floor.

Take it as a compliment!

Yep these guys have the strange fizix that you can kick one leg out from a chair and instead of tipping, something you dont even need a grade school education to figger out, they think that it will fall straight down. LOL It never enters their head that in order for a building or a chair to fall straight down that all the legs or columns must be kicked out approximately the same time.



Its all they have left to debate with, ad hominem, posturing, syntax terrorism and subterfuge.

Because truthers have em right where they deserve to be!