University of Alaska study on WTC Building 7 concludes it could not have come down due to fires

Here is another video featuring the former NIST employee. It includes closeup and slow motion video and brings to the forefront many of the unanswered questions. This is a must watch, especially if you still think fire did all that.

 
unimackpass said:
For one thing he is from freaking Fairbanks and that's just getting started.
Click to expand...


Well finish your thought. "Fuck him he's from Fairbanks" isn't getting started. It's not what you say or know it's where you come from?
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
I think it's very relevant, it's been 16 years and those who are not satisfied with the official investigation have had more than enough time to come up with a more complete explanation. I'd like to see if there's anything more plausible that fits the evidence found.
Click to expand...
That isn't a valid way to discern what's true or not. You don't get to assert something is true until a better explanation comes across. Each explanation or conclusion needs to be weighed against only known facts as if none of the other explanations even exist. As it sits no explanation of the events is satisfactory to some people and those people are not crazy, they just have higher standards of satisfaction than others.
 
It's a contributing factor and his position on this is only going to further a stereotype isn't fair to a lot of sharp people there.
As far as this whole conversation goes it's a waste of time. I gave it up about two pages from my last post. Everything has bin asked and answered on this subject for years. It's not about information or how well one makes a common sense point. It's about a mindset and that's the issue, some people just want to believe this for various reasons. For some people I know it's a obsessive compulsive pattern they can't get out of, it's a way of life making them vulnerable for all sorts of anti government conspiracies that come down the pike.

There is just no sense to engage, I have a life.
 
NakedRare said:
Here is another video featuring the former NIST employee. It includes closeup and slow motion video and brings to the forefront many of the unanswered questions. This is a must watch, especially if you still think fire did all that.

Click to expand...



What a pathetic video posted by a pathetic man. Why don't you ever respond to my questions Nakedmoron? I took the time to address everything you've said, and you're too spineless to respond to my questions? You'll ignore me and talk shit, but you won't simply answer my questions. Pathetic spineless behavior.


Peter Michael Ketcham....The former NIST employee who didn't work in the WTC report in any way, or anything else to do with structural engineering in his professional career. This dude makes apps for a living.

Starts the interview off by declaring that NIST is one of the best organizations on the planet, with incredibly brilliant people working there, and has the extremely high integrity. Then he goes on to say they are suppressing the truth, and it took him over a decade to say something?

"oh yeah totally brilliant people, amazing company with the highest levels of integrity! Now let me speculate on why they participated in the cover up of a false flag terror plot that resulted in the murder of 3k citizens, the serious injury of another 6k citizens, and almost $15 billion in damages. Other that, great company! Tons of integrity!"

- Peter Asshat Ketchum



Next he goes on to say that a controlled demolition was the most likely cause of collapse, yet it wasn't investigated? For one, that's blatantly false. It was investigated and modeled and you can find it in the reports. So yeah, it was dismissed in a few sentences in the report. That's because after extensive testing, it proved to be a theory only idiots would latch onto.

Second, in what fucking insane world do you live in where a secret controlled demolition is more likely than what you can literally see with your own eyes? You can literally watch the towers get hit by planes and catch fire. Until there's actual evidence that explosives were planted or detonated, that's the least likely explanation.


Then this motherfucker says that people had advanced knowledge that it was going to collapse. Well no shit. Several hours before the collapse, the fire department pulled their men from the building because there was no water to fight the fire with, not enough men left to do anything, there was a huge noticeable bulge in the façade of the building between floors 10 and 13, and firefighters reported that the building was structurally unsound. So yes, they made the decision to pull out and let it collapse. How odd that firefighters would know when a building isn't safe to be in anymore.

Not sure why anyone would assume Peter Fuckface would know more about what constitutes a serious fire then the firefighters who were actually there. This asshat wants to call the the fires modest. Well he doesn't know shit about fires and he wasn't in the building.



I'm sure the app developer knows more than that firefighter though right?

Then several more minutes of bullshit. Then Peter inevitably parrots the typical truther nonsense about a symmetrical collapse. Of course he fails to mention that the façade wasn't the point of structural failure. Of course he fails to mention the fact that the penthouse collapsed on the east side. Of course he fails to mention that you can see from the roof that the interior collapse wasn't symmetrical at all. The only thing symmetrical in the collapse was the shell of the building, aka the façade. And that's not the fucking part of the structure that failed.

And again, all this talk and he can't produce a single piece of verifiable evidence for a controlled demolition. Nothing in the debris. Nothing in the collapse. Nothing in building before the attacks.

Seriously, Peter is an idiot with zero qualifications to speak and he's parroting the same truther nonsense that's been around and debunked for nearly a decade. Of course, you guys will latch onto him like some conspiracy-Jesus because you think his former employment at NIST gives him some sort of credibility, but in reality he's no more qualified to give a dissenting opinion then a janitor who worked in NIST. In fact, a janitor at NIST has about as much credibility as he does.


NakedMoron.... Grow a pair, go back to the last time I posted something directed specifically to you, and answer the questions I posed. Stop deflecting like a pussy. Specifically, answer my question regarding exactly what you think happened that day. It's only hard if you know you're full of shit.
 
Last edited:
Rational Poster said:
Why am I supposed to believe that the government needlessly killed Americans to make a case that wasn't necessary to make to achieve their aims?
Click to expand...

What case? Totally changing everything about the world we live in? For a few thousand lives? That's a killer deal. (Crypt keeper voice)
 
sloppypie said:
That's just an irrelevant argument. This 9-11 shit has been debunked repeatedly but conspiracy theorists won't give it up bc it's their life's work.

The motives alone are ridiculous. So the government had this master plan followed up by the shittiest invasion plan in the Middle East. I mean gimme a fuckin break, it's so moronic I can't even believe people buy this shit.
Click to expand...

How old are you?

The motives would be to change The entire world changed dramatically .Scare the people into losing privacy and rights for the matter of greater law.
and as for the middle east. What does it look like now?

Finger fucks at the airport are apparently a small price to pay for this sweet feeedom.
 
Rational Poster said:
Do you ever notice how there is way too much overlapping between the group that thinks the government is totally incompetent and can't do anything right while also simultaneously orchestrating incredibly complicated plots to kill 3000 Americans and then keep it all a secret?
Click to expand...

The World Trade Center was always a target before 911.
The u.s. Knew alqueda had been trying to use planes as weapons since 1995.
We knew about the possibility of planes being flown into the wtc.

To say the us turned a blind eye and let this attack happen to flip the world upside down and change laws and civil rights and give the government more ridiculous amounts power is not crazy at all. And for what? 3000 life's.


How much of your personal freedoms would you give up to believe you are now super safe? Apparently alot

What's been going on in the Middle East since then? Did the US leave any permanent permanent impressions?
I haven't paid attention for 17 years.

But you're right. Nobody likes supreme power or money or maintaining their spot on the totem pole.
That is ridiculous!
 
jgarner said:
As you looked up, it's a different style building. Concrete holds up to fire way better than steel.




Before I get into breaking down your post, for the love of fucking everything holy, can you use the damned quote brackets? It's a million times easier to read your shit when you use the quote and /quote board feature.

It's also the first steel only high rise to be allowed to burn for 8 hours without any water via fire suppression sprinklers or the fire department . Even NIST claims that if sprinklers had worked the building probably wouldn't have collapsed.

There were many "firsts" that day. Doesn't mean much other than that situation doesn't really ever happen.

Again, first high rise steel framed structure to collapse from fires. Not the first steel framed structure to collapse from fire.



Then you can also agree that it's an unsupported assertion to claim the loud noise these eyewitnesses heard are specifically bombs. In a multi-story office fire with a building's structural integrity failing, it's safe to assume that many loud noises are going to be heard. Claiming to know the source of those noises is an unsupported assertion.

And you do realize that NIST modeled and tested a couple of bomb scenarios right? Using SHAMRC and SFOM, they tested theories and found clear evidence that explosions of the necessary magnitude would have been clearly heard by everyone for blocks and would have left blast patterns to the windows that would be clearly evident.



Video of the exterior façade falling isn't evidence in support of a controlled demolition. The interior support is what failed. The interior structural support, which is what failed and caused the collapse, wasn't connected to the exterior framing in a manner that caused it to fail until the third stage of collapse. Seeing that there were no lateral forces to push the façade anywhere but straight down, of course it would fall that that. In what other way do you think it would fall? Maybe if you can explain that, I can tell you why you're incorrect.

If you want to talk about the exterior façade and evidence against a controlled demolition, let's do it.

I'd like you to explain hope this fits with a controlled demolition theory. Why did firefighters notice a large bulge in the façade between floors 10 and 13 around 2:00pm? Why did the east penthouse fail before the rest of the building? Why did windows on the north face break?

Why did the building fall exactly like it was modeled by NIST? Why did the fire department report concerns about the structural integrity of the building several hours before the collapse?



You realize that by the time they "heard" that, the building was already collapsing right?

And again, none of the reliable accounts for hearing "explosions" match the decibel range of explosives large enough to destroy critical columns.



Refuse? :rolleyes:

NIST looked into it and found the idea of thermite being a possibility as pretty silly. The EPA did a chemical analysis and found nothing. RJ Lee Group did another report on the dust and found nothing indicating thermite.

So were there bombs or not? It seems like you don't really have a theory. It's more like you're throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to try and see what sticks. It seems evident that you're admitting it's quite possible there were no actual bomb caused explosions heard. I'm glad you can admit that.




Do you not understand the difference between "rather similar" and "exactly alike"? Fuck you people are insane.

I've already posted above several key differences that you can see, but the fact remains that the façade of the building wasn't the point of failure. That's why it stayed in one piece as it collapsed.

Why did it go into its own "footprint" you ask? Well because of this force called gravity and a lack of lateral forces.

Why did it not break up? Because the façade was rigid and there was nothing to break it up into it started hitting the debris at the bottom.

I would love to find a video of a similar collapse. The only problem is that multistory fires in high-rises are incredibly rare to begin with. Steel framed only construction is even more rare. And steel framed only high rises that burn for an entire afternoon with no sprinkler systems or firefighting efforts are nearly unheard of. It took 2 jets slamming into the buildings next to them, killing almost 350 firefighters and shutting down the water lines to create the conditions for WTC 7 to fail.

Here's a counter question for you... Can you find any examples of high rise steel framed only (not steel and concrete framed) buildings that burned with multistory fires for 7 hours without sprinkler systems and firefighting efforts that stayed standing and structurally sound?




The mode of collapse is the same. Every aspect of the collapse in WTC 7 is broken down, including a legitimate explanation for the rate of descent.

Yes there was asymmetric damage to WTC 7 which is why the collapse wasn't symmetric. And what modeling have you done to make the claim that there should have only been a partial collapse? It's fucking amazing at the hypocrisy with your statement. NIST can produce an entire report with models, but that's not enough for you. But you can turn around and baselessly speculate about what collapse "should" be without any modeling or education.

You also don't understand how the structural support in those buildings worked. The towers weren't designed to sustain such heavy damage.

You don't even seen to understand the NIST breakdown of the collapse after the failure of the girder on WTC 7. Let me refresh your memory. And you can point out which part is incorrect.

The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400 °C (750 °F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. When steel (or any other metal) is heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beams is resisted by columns or other steel members, forces develop in the structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures of connections.

Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of
Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.

Due to the buckling of Column 79 between Floors 5 and 14, the upper section of Column 79 began to descend. The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its subsequent descent. The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased unsupported length in, falling debris impact on, and loads being re-distributed to adjacent columns; and Column 80 and then Column 81 buckled as well. All the floor connections to these three columns, as well as to the exterior columns, failed, and the floors fell on the east side of the building. The exterior façade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell.

The failure of the interior columns then proceeded toward the west. Truss 2 (Figure 1–6) failed, hit by the debris from the falling floors. This caused Column 77 and Column 78 to fail, followed shortly by Column 76. Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west, due to loss of lateral support from floor system failures, to the forces exerted by falling debris, which
tended to push the columns westward, and to the loads redistributed to them from the buckled columns. Within seconds, the entire building core was buckling.

The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.

- Probable Collapse Sequence NIST WTC 7 Final Report



The evidence for a fire collapse is that we literally watched a building that randomly caught fire collapse. Then a team of some of the best engineers in the field spent countless hours and resources creating around 40 incredibly detailed reports with real world testing, mathematical modeling, and proven physics.

Here's all the NIST reports compiled in one location.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-la...ist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

You can look behind any fucking curtain you want. It's encouraged in fact. And again, I'll pose this challenge to you. Go in any of the final reports, find a technical error that makes the report impossible, and back up your claim with real math and science. I've asked everyone to do it. Nobody will. Quote a part of the report for the Towers or WTC 7 that isn't factually correct.

And you really have the audacity to insult NIST when your only theory is little two YouTube clips spliced together. That's the Wizard of Oz bullshit.


Oh and can you please post your theory on what you believe happened? And can you please detail the logic behind why they would rig WTC 7 with explosives and then rely on an accidental fire to cover their demolition? What do you think their alternative plan was? What if it never caught fire?





You mean Buzzy Krongard with Alex Brown and heading Banker's Trust?

What do you think of chapter 5 section 5.4 The Money Trail from this commission report?

https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

They seem to say that while there was a lot of put options on September 6, they followed that up with over 115,000 orders buying shares by that same group.

They also say that these actions were recommended by some "US-based Options Trading Newsletter", but I've been unable to find any actual references to said newsletter in a cursory search.

Again, my stock market knowledge is rather limited. The most I do it's throw money in some index fund and leave it alone. So if you know more, I'm happy to listen
Click to expand...
Before I begin, I would like to note that you quote extensively from the NIST report in the underlined portioned of your post. I will respond to that portion, and I will also ask you to quote from other reports that you refer to but do not quote.




Your words: Then you can also agree that it's an unsupported assertion to claim the loud noise these eyewitnesses heard are specifically bombs. In a multi-story office fire with a building's structural integrity failing, it's safe to assume that many loud noises are going to be heard. Claiming to know the source of those noises is an unsupported assertion.

And you do realize that NIST modeled and tested a couple of bomb scenarios right? Using SHAMRC and SFOM, they tested theories and found clear evidence that explosions of the necessary magnitude would have been clearly heard by everyone for blocks and would have left blast patterns to the windows that would be clearly evident.

I have not asserted that the hearing of loud noises by witnesses are conclusive of bombs. I have asserted that the visual evidence of the WTC7 collapse supports demolition more than it supports collapse from asymmetric damage such as from fires. I have supported this assertion with side-by-side comparisons with demolitions and by a the dissimilarity of a burning model from the WTC7 collapse (post #611 – I use the model because you, NIST, and I are agreed that there is no historical example preceding 9/11of a steel-framed highrise collapsing from fire). I have also asserted that NIST is wrong to rule out demolition on the audio evidence, because even if a recording was made right next to WTC7 and this recording showed no explosion noise, demolition can be accomplished without explosive noise as I have demonstrated with a video of the cutting of a steel support without explosion (post #487).

I also have asserted that the noise of explosion has also not been excluded. I have stated that the loudness of an original sound cannot be unequivocally determined from any recording of the sound, and I have supported that assertion with the example of the recording of a gunshot (post #497). You responded with, “There's plenty of ways to analyse audio and there's no explosions that were large enough to cause the entire building to collapse” (post #499). I am asking you to support your assertion with a description of one of these methods to analyze audio. If you think that there is such a description in SHAMRC or SFOM then please quote it as you have quoted from the NIST report in the underlined portion of your post.




Your words: NIST looked into it and found the idea of thermite being a possibility as pretty silly. The EPA did a chemical analysis and found nothing. RJ Lee Group did another report on the dust and found nothing indicating thermite.

So were there bombs or not? It seems like you don't really have a theory. It's more like you're throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to try and see what sticks. It seems evident that you're admitting it's quite possible there were no actual bomb caused explosions heard. I'm glad you can admit that.

Would you please quote the analysis from NIST, the EPA, and RJ Lee group regarding chemical analysis of WTC7 rubble as you have quoted NIST in the underlined portion of your post?

My position is that a regular explosive demolition is the most likely explanation based on the visual evidence of the WTC7 collapse. I think that the NIST reasoning for not conducting a chemical analysis on the basis of audio evidence is flawed because even if conclusive audio evidence of no explosion could be provided (It hasn’t been provided.), demolition could be accomplished without explosive noise as I’ve already described earlier in this post.





Your words: Do you not understand the difference between "rather similar" and "exactly alike"? Fuck you people are insane.

I've already posted above several key differences that you can see, but the fact remains that the façade of the building wasn't the point of failure. That's why it stayed in one piece as it collapsed.

Why did it go into its own "footprint" you ask? Well because of this force called gravity and a lack of lateral forces.

Why did it not break up? Because the façade was rigid and there was nothing to break it up into it started hitting the debris at the bottom.

I would love to find a video of a similar collapse. The only problem is that multistory fires in high-rises are incredibly rare to begin with. Steel framed only construction is even more rare. And steel framed only high rises that burn for an entire afternoon with no sprinkler systems or firefighting efforts are nearly unheard of. It took 2 jets slamming into the buildings next to them, killing almost 350 firefighters and shutting down the water lines to create the conditions for WTC 7 to fail.

Here's a counter question for you... Can you find any examples of high rise steel framed only (not steel and concrete framed) buildings that burned with multistory fires for 7 hours without sprinkler systems and firefighting efforts that stayed standing and structurally sound?

You are stating that the WTC7 collapse more closely resembles fire collapse than collapse from demolition without being able to provide any real world example of a similar fire collapse. You state that you cannot provide a real world example because of the rareness of the WTC7 circumstances having a no sprinkler system. But a real world model could easily be made in which the supports are made to burn uncontrollably to the point of failure. The gentleman in the video in post #611 used paper supports in his model. Kindling would be another possibility. Until you can show otherwise in the real world, at the present time the WTC7 collapse more closely resembles demolitions than it does other forms of collapse. As you stated, “Seeing that there were no lateral forces to push the façade anywhere but straight down, of course it would fall that that.”, it should be straight forward to build a model with no lateral forces and achieve a symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical fire if the world works as you claim.




Your words: You don't even seen to understand the NIST breakdown of the collapse after the failure of the girder on WTC 7. Let me refresh your memory. And you can point out which part is incorrect.

The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 …

Oh and can you please post your theory on what you believe happened?

I have already stated that the visual evidence of the WTC7 is presently best explained by controlled demolition accomplished by detonation of charges on multiple supports set to go off as simultaneously as possible so as to achieve a collapse as symmetrical and as rapid as known demolitions, which the WTC7 collapse more closely resembles in side by side comparison than any other form of collapse.





Your words: You can look behind any fucking curtain you want. It's encouraged in fact. And again, I'll pose this challenge to you. Go in any of the final reports, find a technical error that makes the report impossible, and back up your claim with real math and science. I've asked everyone to do it. Nobody will. Quote a part of the report for the Towers or WTC 7 that isn't factually correct.

Real science is published to convince others that the scientist’s experiment supports his hypothesis. Other scientists are convinced when they replicate the experiment and obtain the same results. NIST claims to support it’ collapse explanation with the following model:

WTC7-NIST-Simulation-with-Impact-damage.gif


An individual requested information, by which a replication could be attempted, and was refused on the grounds that the information would "jeopardize public safety” (see the end of post #611). So absent the information to replicate the model, the NIST model is as much a model of the WTC7 collapse as this is:

rampage.gif
 
Last edited:
TSO said:
That isn't a valid way to discern what's true or not. You don't get to assert something is true until a better explanation comes across. Each explanation or conclusion needs to be weighed against only known facts as if none of the other explanations even exist. As it sits no explanation of the events is satisfactory to some people and those people are not crazy, they just have higher standards of satisfaction than others.
Click to expand...

Well then a good question would be is what would satisfy them? I'd like to hear it myself.
 
gatchaman said:
Before I begin, I would like to note that you quote extensively from the NIST report in the underlined portioned of your post. I will respond to that portion, and I will also ask you to quote from other reports that you refer to but do not quote.




Your words: Then you can also agree that it's an unsupported assertion to claim the loud noise these eyewitnesses heard are specifically bombs. In a multi-story office fire with a building's structural integrity failing, it's safe to assume that many loud noises are going to be heard. Claiming to know the source of those noises is an unsupported assertion.

And you do realize that NIST modeled and tested a couple of bomb scenarios right? Using SHAMRC and SFOM, they tested theories and found clear evidence that explosions of the necessary magnitude would have been clearly heard by everyone for blocks and would have left blast patterns to the windows that would be clearly evident.

I have not asserted that the hearing of loud noises by witnesses are conclusive of bombs. I have asserted that the visual evidence of the WTC7 collapse supports demolition more than it supports collapse from asymmetric damage such as from fires. I have supported this assertion with side-by-side comparisons with demolitions and by a the dissimilarity of a burning model from the WTC7 collapse (post #611 – I use the model because you, NIST, and I are agreed that there is no historical example preceding 9/11of a steel-framed highrise collapsing from fire). I have also asserted that NIST is wrong to rule out demolition on the audio evidence, because even if a recording was made right next to WTC7 and this recording showed no explosion noise, demolition can be accomplished without explosive noise as I have demonstrated with a video of the cutting of a steel support without explosion (post #487).

I also have asserted that the noise of explosion has also not been excluded. I have stated that the loudness of an original sound cannot be unequivocally determined from any recording of the sound, and I have supported that assertion with the example of the recording of a gunshot (post #497). You responded with, “There's plenty of ways to analyse audio and there's no explosions that were large enough to cause the entire building to collapse” (post #499). I am asking you to support your assertion with a description of one of these methods to analyze audio. If you think that there is such a description in SHAMRC or SFOM then please quote it as you have quoted from the NIST report in the underlined portion of your post.




Your words: NIST looked into it and found the idea of thermite being a possibility as pretty silly. The EPA did a chemical analysis and found nothing. RJ Lee Group did another report on the dust and found nothing indicating thermite.

So were there bombs or not? It seems like you don't really have a theory. It's more like you're throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to try and see what sticks. It seems evident that you're admitting it's quite possible there were no actual bomb caused explosions heard. I'm glad you can admit that.

Would you please quote the analysis from NIST, the EPA, and RJ Lee group regarding chemical analysis of WTC7 rubble as you have quoted NIST in the underlined portion of your post?

My position is that a regular explosive demolition is the most likely explanation based on the visual evidence of the WTC7 collapse. I think that the NIST reasoning for not conducting a chemical analysis on the basis of audio evidence is flawed because even if conclusive audio evidence of no explosion could be provided (It hasn’t been provided.), demolition could be accomplished without explosive noise as I’ve already described earlier in this post.





Your words: Do you not understand the difference between "rather similar" and "exactly alike"? Fuck you people are insane.

I've already posted above several key differences that you can see, but the fact remains that the façade of the building wasn't the point of failure. That's why it stayed in one piece as it collapsed.

Why did it go into its own "footprint" you ask? Well because of this force called gravity and a lack of lateral forces.

Why did it not break up? Because the façade was rigid and there was nothing to break it up into it started hitting the debris at the bottom.

I would love to find a video of a similar collapse. The only problem is that multistory fires in high-rises are incredibly rare to begin with. Steel framed only construction is even more rare. And steel framed only high rises that burn for an entire afternoon with no sprinkler systems or firefighting efforts are nearly unheard of. It took 2 jets slamming into the buildings next to them, killing almost 350 firefighters and shutting down the water lines to create the conditions for WTC 7 to fail.

Here's a counter question for you... Can you find any examples of high rise steel framed only (not steel and concrete framed) buildings that burned with multistory fires for 7 hours without sprinkler systems and firefighting efforts that stayed standing and structurally sound?

You are stating that the WTC7 collapse more closely resembles fire collapse than collapse from demolition without being able to provide any real world example of a similar fire collapse. You state that you cannot provide a real world example because of the rareness of the WTC7 circumstances having a no sprinkler system. But a real world model could easily be made in which the supports are made to burn uncontrollably to the point of failure. The gentleman in the video in post #611 used paper supports in his model. Kindling would be another possibility. Until you can show otherwise in the real world, at the present time the WTC7 collapse more closely resembles demolitions than it does other forms of collapse. As you stated, “Seeing that there were no lateral forces to push the façade anywhere but straight down, of course it would fall that that.”, it should be straight forward to build a model with no lateral forces and achieve a symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical fire if the world works as you claim.




Your words: You don't even seen to understand the NIST breakdown of the collapse after the failure of the girder on WTC 7. Let me refresh your memory. And you can point out which part is incorrect.

The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 …

Oh and can you please post your theory on what you believe happened?

I have already stated that the visual evidence of the WTC7 is presently best explained by controlled demolition accomplished by detonation of charges on multiple supports set to go off as simultaneously as possible so as to achieve a collapse as symmetrical and as rapid as known demolitions, which the WTC7 collapse more closely resembles in side by side comparison than any other form of collapse.





Your words: You can look behind any fucking curtain you want. It's encouraged in fact. And again, I'll pose this challenge to you. Go in any of the final reports, find a technical error that makes the report impossible, and back up your claim with real math and science. I've asked everyone to do it. Nobody will. Quote a part of the report for the Towers or WTC 7 that isn't factually correct.

Real science is published to convince others that the scientist’s experiment supports his hypothesis. Other scientists are convinced when they replicate the experiment and obtain the same results. NIST claims to support it’ collapse explanation with the following model:

WTC7-NIST-Simulation-with-Impact-damage.gif


An individual requested information, by which a replication could be attempted, and was refused on the grounds that the information would "jeopardize public safety” (see the end of post #611). So absent the information to replicate the model, the NIST model is as much a model of the WTC7 collapse as this is:

rampage.gif
Click to expand...
Great post again. He still wont respond to the salient points, but thanks for the effort.
 
Oh jeez well if the University of Alaska says so.... lol
 
TSO said:
You'd have to ask them. As for me, I just need an explanation that comports to reality.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that means as reality is a subject term, reality for the cynical and the credulous are two different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeonardoBjj
Social Groundwater depletion accelerating in many parts of the world, study finds
Replies
5
Views
377
Otto!
Otto!

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,693
Messages
55,435,102
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top