New NIST Report On WTC 7 - Change Anybody's Mind?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=AndrewL]
The problem with this is that demolishing a building is an absolutely terrible way to cover up evidence. It’s too chaotic and unpredictable. The hypothetical conspirators had no way to guarantee that in the collapse some incriminating memo or thumb drive or something wouldn’t end up coming out intact, to be picked up by a journalist to expose the entire thing. There’s just no way to be sure that the evidence they want destroyed would actually be destroyed. When the government wants to destroy information, they have far more reliable (and less suspicious) ways of doing it: paper shredders, bulk erasers, and such.
[/QUOTE]

If no-one was looking for such ‘evidence’, why would you expect any to be found? This is exactly what the hypothetical conspirators would want you to believe. But, as this is GD and I’ve got nothing but opinion, I’d better back out of this thread.

42

[QUOTE=CurtC]
Is that really true? How many books has he sold? I’d be surprised if it’s more than a couple hundred thousand, and I don’t think authors get most of a book’s sale price.
[/quote]
He sold 300,000 copies of the Big Lie alone, and it’s not the only 9/11 bestseller he’s written. I’ve heard it was self-published, but I can’t find anything confirming or denying this. Add paid appearences and the guy has made no small amount of money off of this. It’s safe to say he has lived very comfortably for the last 7 years off of the profits he’s made from lying about the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans.

Dylan claims he has sold 50,000 copies of Loose Change at 20 bucks a pop. That’s a million dollars. There’s probably no way to confirm it one way or another, but the video has 10s of millions of views IIRC so it’s not unthinkable that 50,000 of those people wanted to own the DVD. He has definitely lived off of his 9/11 lies. He hasn’t had a job since he started this “crusade”.

43

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
If no-one was looking for such ‘evidence’, why would you expect any to be found? This is exactly what the hypothetical conspirators would want you to believe. But, as this is GD and I’ve got nothing but opinion, I’d better back out of this thread.
[/QUOTE]

The burden of proof is on you if you believe something so absurd. What were they trying to destroy that couldn’t be shredded or magnetically erased, without demolishing a skyscraper?

44

[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
I’ve made some comments about buildings being engineered strong and a few other things. But they’re all tangential to my main argument. That any sort of collapse would take even half a second to spread and could not create a perfect symmetric, flat roof. The NIST proposes a model where the horizontal supports are being pulled. Carson can comment on whether the frame is susceptible to that. (Seems like a blunder in engineering if pulling on a horizontal support will unzip the whole building.)

But even the horizontal girders are besides the point, since there would still be a split-second delay. Even a fn artillery shell flying straight across the ground floor at muzzle velocity would take 0.1s to cross. 0.1s would give a pretty noticeable uneveness in the roof. Mark my words, no physical collapse in a large building can make the roof flat.
[/QUOTE]

Why should we “mark your words”? Are you a structural engineer of some sort?
Do you know how buildings are demoed? A crew comes in weeks beforehand with a bunch of tools. They have to clear out the structure around the vertical supports so they can get at them. They need to drill holes into the concrete so they can plant their charges (or wrap Detcord around steel I columns if that’s what the building uses). Then the whole shebang has to be wired together for your precision detonation.

So I ask you. When did this hypothetical team of demolition experts sneak several tons of thermite or dynamite or whatever into WTC 7 and set all this up?

45

Certainly my mind was changed. I thought it was space aliens. I’m unconvinced by this report anyway…it’s the government after all. And…well THEY are everywhere…

-XT

46

[QUOTE=Cisco]
The burden of proof is on you if you believe something so absurd. What were they trying to destroy that couldn’t be shredded or magnetically erased, without demolishing a skyscraper?
[/QUOTE]

My tendency to believe in the possibility of “shadowy ebil puppeteer” types is no less absurd than believing in the possibilty of a Christian God… in fact, it’s probably much less so. Obviously, I have no ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ to back up my suspicions, but I do have precedent for governments massacring innocents for ‘the greater good’!

47

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
My tendency to believe in the possibility of “shadowy ebil puppeteer” types is no less absurd than believing in the possibilty of a Christian God
[/quote]
Irrelevant, and

irrelevant. Congratulations on making two irrelevant points in one post!

How 'bout instead of just doing this through the thread over and over, make a contribution to your cause by answering post #29. No one else has been able to. Alex Dubinsky very conspicuously dodged it, just like every other tinhatter does.

48

[QUOTE=Cisco]
The people originating and perpetuating these lies have made millions of dollars off of them. Book sales, DVD sales, speaking tours, tshirt sales, advertising revenue from the millions of hits they get on their websites, etc etc etc. Thierry Meyssan is a millionaire many times over from the lies he has told about 9/11. Do you know how many “Investigate 9/11” tshirts, hoodies and posters, and DVDs of Loose Change Dylan Avery has sold? It’s not hard at all to see the motivation here.

(Also note that a lot of the people were very openly and publically pro-conspiracy/anti-government before 9/11)
[/QUOTE]
I admit that the only 911 conspiracy theorist I have listened to is Steve Jones, who I do not believe is ‘faking it’, or making millions off of it.

49

[QUOTE=Cisco]
Irrelevant, and
irrelevant. Congratulations on making two irrelevant points in one post!

How 'bout instead of just doing this through the thread over and over, make a contribution to your cause by answering post #29. No one else has been able to. Alex Dubinsky very conspicuously dodged it, just like every other tinhatter does.
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t got the credentials to answer your question to the satisfaction of GD standards, and I’m only responding because you specifically address me. All I am suggesting is that IF it was at all possible to have brought those buildings down deliberately, the likelihood should AT LEAST be investigated. And there are obviously more than a few people who think the same way as me.

corrected for typo.

50

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
I haven’t got the credentials to answer your question to the satisfaction of GD standards, and I’m only responding because you specifically address me. All I am suggesting is that IF it was at all possible to have brought those buildings down deliberately, the likelihood should AT LEAST be investigated. And there are obviously more than a few people who think the same way as me.

corrected for typo.
[/QUOTE]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Do some readings on those sites. If you come back and have honest questions I’ll be more than glad to have a civil discussion with you. If you come back babbling more nonsense about demolition, I’ll bow out of addressing you until this topic inevitably makes its way back to the pit (again.)

51

[QUOTE=AndrewL]
The problem with this is that demolishing a building is an absolutely terrible way to cover up evidence. It’s too chaotic and unpredictable. The hypothetical conspirators had no way to guarantee that in the collapse some incriminating memo or thumb drive or something wouldn’t end up coming out intact, to be picked up by a journalist to expose the entire thing. There’s just no way to be sure that the evidence they want destroyed would actually be destroyed. When the government wants to destroy information, they have far more reliable (and less suspicious) ways of doing it: paper shredders, bulk erasers, and such.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, you people with limited imaginations! The information was built into the very building itself! Demolishing it would be like dumping a Scrabble set on the ground.

52

[QUOTE=Cisco]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Do some readings on those sites. If you come back and have honest questions I’ll be more than glad to have a civil discussion with you. If you come back babbling more nonsense about demolition, I’ll bow out of addressing you until this topic inevitably makes its way back to the pit (again.)
[/QUOTE]

The likelihood of me having a civil discussion with you, after you accuse me of “babbling nonsense”, for daring to suggest any of the towers were ‘demolished’, seems very slim, so I’ll give your invitation a miss, thank you. I will add though that I have read those links, and many others like it, while poring through the voluminous threads on the subject over at the JREF, and posters like Apollo20, Max Photon, and several others, all give me reason to still doubt the ‘official account’.

53

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
All I am suggesting is that IF it was at all possible to have brought those buildings down deliberately, the likelihood should AT LEAST be investigated.
[/quote]
It was. Have you read the report? (Start at page 60)

54

[QUOTE=Musicat]
It was. Have you read the report? (Start at page 60)
[/QUOTE]

Well, 49 lines and two diagrams seems a thorough enough investigation to me, but it still doesn’t address the possibility that it might not have been an ‘explosion’, but merely a weakening of the structural steel in significant places. Is there definitely no possibility of something such as the infamous thermite, or some sort of derivative being used?

55

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
The likelihood of me having a civil discussion with you, after you accuse me of “babbling nonsense”, for daring to suggest any of the towers were ‘demolished’, seems very slim, so I’ll give your invitation a miss, thank you. I will add though that I have read those links, and many others like it, while poring through the voluminous threads on the subject over at the JREF, and posters like Apollo20, Max Photon, and several others, all give me reason to still doubt the ‘official account’.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I figured as much. You’re a lot further down the rabbit hole than you originally let on, which is common with people who pretend to innocently “just ask questions.”

“I don’t want a debate, I just want to spit my poison in Great Debates and then tuck tail and run.”

56

[QUOTE=Cisco]
Yeah, I figured as much. You’re a lot further down the rabbit hole than you originally let on, which is common with people who pretend to innocently “just ask questions.”

“I don’t want a debate, I just want to spit my poison in Great Debates and then tuck tail and run.”
[/QUOTE]

You know where The Pit is.

57

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
I haven’t got the credentials to answer your question to the satisfaction of GD standards, and I’m only responding because you specifically address me. All I am suggesting is that IF it was at all possible to have brought those buildings down deliberately, the likelihood should AT LEAST be investigated. And there are obviously more than a few people who think the same way as me.

corrected for typo.
[/QUOTE]

Is it possible? Sure. Did the NIST investigate this possibility? Yes they did - see the “Q&A” link that I posted; about halfway down the page they specifically address questions about explosives and thermite. If you download the entire report (it’s two big honkin’ PDFs, one about 20mb and the other about 45mb) you’ll notice that one of the authors of the section regarding explosive demolition is from CDI (Controlled Demolition Incorporated) which is a very famous company responsible for probably most of the “blowin’ up buildings” videos that we see. Appendix D starts on page 683 of the report.

Alex, you mentioned in your first post that you’d like to see them address where the critical column failed - if you read the basic summary on NIST’s front page you will see that they do precisely that, discussing which column failed (#79, with accompanying diagram), where it failed (the 9-story section that lost lateral support due to floors collapsing), the failure mode (long-column buckling, that’s real basic stuff in structural engineering) and why the lateral support (floors) failed to begin with.

If you want a very simple demonstration of what happens when a column loses lateral stability try this: Take a plain wooden yardstick and put one end on the floor. Now press straight down on the other end with your hand until it bows out of shape. That’s a column buckling with a long unsupported span.

Now do it again, only this time grab the yardstick at the 18 inch mark with your free hand. Notice how much harder it is to make the yardstick buckle by pressing down on the top? That’s because you’ve cut the unsupported length in half which can result in up to four times the compressive strength (not exactly because there are multiple failure modes but you can see the dramatic difference that one support makes). Imagine how different it’d be if that yardstick was braced every four inches (nine “floors”) compared to only being held at the two ends (nine “floors” removed).

If you want to plow through their math, computer simulations, diagrams and all the other chewy stuff I advise making up a nice pot of coffee and reading through the report - it’s over 700 pages long so it may take an evening or two to digest :slight_smile:

For the people that my OP was addressed to, that being folks who did not accept the common explanation of structural failure brought about by fires and physical damage initiated by the collapse of WTC1 and 2, have you read the NIST report, or at least the summary and if so did that change your position at all? If you haven’t read it, please do so. If you don’t want to read it then my OP isn’t really aimed at you.

58

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
You know where The Pit is.
[/QUOTE]

You’re not worth it. Your sick little movement was stillborn and your half-baked theories are just a throbbing afterbirth.

59

[QUOTE=dropzone]
Oh, you people with limited imaginations! The information was built into the very building itself! Demolishing it would be like dumping a Scrabble set on the ground.
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of blowing up, I think you just blew my mind!

60

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Well, 49 lines and two diagrams seems a thorough enough investigation to me, but it still doesn’t address the possibility that it might not have been an ‘explosion’, but merely a weakening of the structural steel in significant places.
[/quote]
The whole reason that WTC7 seems like an anomaly to many people (including Alex here) is that it fell suddenly and fairly symmetrically, just like a controlled demolition, which to them indicates that the structural supports were taken out suddenly and simultaneously across the building. Alex says that he couldn’t tolerate even half a second of skew. All this is in spite of the huge logistical problems for such a scenario, namely the lack of preparation time and the perpetrators’ problem if the North Tower had not smashed into WTC7.

Yet here you’re clinging to the possibility that maybe some new type of CD was done where they weaken the building. So not only does your hypothesis have the same huge logistical problems, it denies the very things that cause those people to suspect CD in the first place. Weakening the building is exactly what the fires did!

You can’t rule out possibilities, but it’s hard to imagine that someone would try to use thermite to cut a vertical column when that’s never been done before and seems pretty unlikely that it would even work. Steven Jones has brought up the idea of nano-thermate, which burns so fast that it’s explosive, but then you’re back to the problem of having explosives with no sounds of explosives, so thermite wouldn’t solve any hurdles for them anyway.