WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[Riverwind]

Riverwind:Try reading the NIST report.

Few people actually read that report.

So you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about? Sounds like a classic strawman: make an assertion and claim it came from NIST and then 'prove' that assertion is wrong. A perfect example of why any data provided by thruthies cannot be trusted.

Hoffman talks about the NIST report and how its a 20 million dollar whitewash but his explaination probably doesn't apply to the latest version since it keeps changing all the time.

NIST was exploring different hypotheses during its investigation. Some of those hypotheses were discarded. This is the normal process but you want to 'spin it' as something neferious. Another classic example of propoganda from truthies.

It wasn't designed to actually be read according to Hoffman.

I have read through pieces of the report (mostly the fire and collapse analysis). I did not find it that hard to follow. Perhaps Hoffman is not as qualified as he would like people to believe.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:So you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

There is no way you read that report. And even if you did there is no way you could understand it. You can't even do a free body force diagram right. That report stands 2 feet high. You have to go to others that have read it.

I know what I am talking about, and I know you do not from these quotes:

Riverwind scientific quotes:

"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

"Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare.

Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses. "

"At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing."

"Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame."

"Quantum mechanics is the theoretical underpinning for all matter"

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:NIST was exploring different hypotheses during its investigation. Some of those hypotheses were discarded. This is the normal process but you want to 'spin it' as something neferious

Normally when you do a report and you say "this is what happened" you mean "this is what happened" - if its a working hypothesis it is qualified as such. The fact that NIST keeps changing their stories all the time shows that its just propoganda. The fact that they have Philip Zelikow (a maintainer of public myths) instead of real qualified forensic examiners involved shows that its just propoganda. This means that it is nefarious and you making the above statement shows you may not even believe this crap and that you are probably a paid off gate keeper.

The fact that the report doesn't even explain the total collapse of all the buildings - or even one of them and you keep infering that it does shows that you are a fool.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: I have read through pieces of the report (mostly the fire and collapse analysis). I did not find it that hard to follow.

What about all the contradictions like them saying the temps were low like the quote below:

"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC."

NIST (p 90/140), obtained from 911Research

Then the parts where it was saying the temperatures were 1000 deg C like where you said earlier on this thread - don't you find all these contradictions confusing ?

[PolyNewbie]

Here is a post showiung the temperature mappings based on computer modelling of the temperatures in the NIST report, but the temperatures in this map are so much higher than the evidence described above show. I find this confusing, don't you Riverwind ?

temp map

How come the temps were so high in this sim ?

[ScottSA]

Wow, warm day in Vernon today.

[Riverwind]

Normally when you do a report and you say "this is what happened" you mean "this is what happened" - if its a working hypothesis it is qualified as such.

When a report labelled 'DRAFT' or "INTERIM' that usually means the results are tentative. In most cases the disclaimers will be placed at the beginning of the document and not in every line of text. I know you have no idea whether the appropriate disclaimers existed since you have already admitted that you don't read anything other than what the truthies spoon feed you.

Here is a post showiung the temperature mappings based on computer modelling of the temperatures in the NIST report, but the temperatures in this map are so much higher than the evidence described above show. I find this confusing, don't you Riverwind ?

The paint cracking quote is BS. If you look the actually NIST report you will see that Hoffman's quote is immediately followed by a disclaimer that the says the columns analyzed represented less than one percent of the columns in the fire exposed region and cannot be considered representative of the general conditions in the core.

IOW - there is NO contradiction in the NIST report. Yet another example of deliberate distortion of the facts by truthies. Yet more evidence that every piece of data on a truthie website is suspect and cannot be trusted.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: I know you have no idea whether the appropriate disclaimers existed since you have already admitted that you don't read anything other than what the truthies spoon feed you.

That is a blatent lie. You also saying that you have read the NIST report is also a lie. I too have read bits of the NIST report, like you. Notice the difference in how that gets stated between the two of us. That difference is a character difference.

Riverwind: When a report labelled 'DRAFT' or "INTERIM' that usually means the results are tentative.

It means all the t's haven't yet been crossed and the i's haven't been dotted not that the hypothesis is goiing to change. The hypothesis keeps changing every time some conspiracy theorist comes along and says the NIST version of events is impossible and points it out so that anyone can understand, as Hoffman does in the Guns & Butter archives.

Riverwind: represented less than one percent of the columns in the fire exposed region and cannot be considered representative of the general conditions in the core.

I guess the evidence was destroyed so we will never know. All those bending core columns in this high temperature region that comprises the evidence NIST depends on to validate its report are gone or destroyed.

I wonder where they get the information for these high temperatures. Do you think they just use the knowledge that the building collapsed and conclude from that that the temperatures were this high ?

[Riverwind]

It means all the t's haven't yet been crossed and the i's haven't been dotted not that the hypothesis is goiing to change.

Says who? Polly and the truthies? A draft report is whatever the authors decide it is. Some draft reports are stable others will be radically changed before the final release. There is no hard and fast rule. Claiming there is one is a deliberate distortion.

Incidently, I suspect the truthies are lying again here to. I don't believe they have any evidence that NIST 'constantly changed its story'.

I guess the evidence was destroyed so we will never know. All those bending core columns in this high temperature region that comprises the evidence NIST depends on to validate its report are gone or destroyed.

I wondered how they were even able to isolate a few columns that were on the damaged floors. Finding those beams among 500,000 tonnes of rubble is quite a feat. Finding a 'representative sample' would have been next to impossible.

It is now clear that Hoffman deliberately misrepresented information contained in the NIST report. Do you think it is because Hoffman is a liar or is he simply incompetent? Why should anyone take this guy seriously?

I wonder where they get the information for these high temperatures. Do you think they just use the knowledge that the building collapsed and conclude from that that the temperatures were this high ?

You are the one you keeps claiming that you 'know' what the temperatures must be because you saw pictures of red orange metal. The temperatures were estimates based on computer simulations. They conducted small scale tests to validate their computer model. The tests are not proof in themselves but the NIST simulations are consistent with other conclusive evidence. That makes them plausible.

[PolyNewbie]

It is now clear that Hoffman deliberately misrepresented information contained in the NIST report. Do you think it is because Hoffman is a liar or is he simply incompetent? Why should anyone take this guy seriously?

Where did Hoffman do this ?

[Riverwind]

It is now clear that Hoffman deliberately misrepresented information contained in the NIST report. Do you think it is because Hoffman is a liar or is he simply incompetent? Why should anyone take this guy seriously?

Where did Hoffman do this ?

Hoffman's presentation deliberately misrepresents the purpose of the floor assembly tests. These tests were conducted to collect data to calibrate the computer model. i.e. NIST uses the computer model to predict what should happen with the test assembly and then runs tests to confirm that computer model correctly predicted what happened. This means that the absolute results with the test assembly (i.e. floor sagging and temperature data) are not representative of the conditions inside the WTC buildings. This is explained in the NIST report.

You claimed (I thought it was Hoffman) that the paint cracking analysis contradicted NISTs computer simulations. That is also a deliberate misrepresentation because the NIST report makes it clear that the paint cracking analysis was inconclusive and that there is no contradiction between the paint cracking analysis and the simulations.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You claimed (I thought it was Hoffman) that the paint cracking analysis contradicted NISTs computer simulations.

This is a straw man statement. Where is the evidence that supports these temperatures ?

Riverwind: These tests were conducted to collect data to calibrate the computer model. i.e. NIST uses the computer model to predict what should happen with the test assembly and then runs tests to confirm that computer model correctly predicted what happened.

They are calibrating the simulations to meet the requirements of the stated hypothesis.

This is why I think the actual collapse was not modeled because you could not make the computer simulation end up collapseing the whole building the way it did. When you consider the detailed modelling in the pre collapse scenario and then see that they have entirely skipped simulating the critical event you must wonder why.

[Riverwind]

This is a straw man statement. Where is the evidence that supports these temperatures ?

Where is the evidence that the temperatures were anything other than what the NIST simulations claim?

NIST validated their computer models with artifical tests. This means their models are reasonably accurate.

This is why I think the actual collapse was not modeled because you could not make the computer simulation end up collapseing the whole building the way it did. When you consider the detailed modelling in the pre collapse scenario and then see that they have entirely skipped simulating the critical event you must wonder why.

Nobody but truthies cares what happened after the collapse started. What NIST needed to find out is why the building collapsed. That means they only need to model up until the point of collapse. What happened after that is irrelevant.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: NIST validated their computer models with artifical tests. This means their models are reasonably accurate.

By arificial tests I assume you mean "not based on evidence". Interesting.

Riverwind: What happened after that is irrelevant.

The complete and unlikely destruction of these three buildings is not worth investigating. Hmmm.

[Riverwind]

By arificial tests I assume you mean "not based on evidence". Interesting.

No it means that the test assemblies were created to validate specific parts of the model. None of the assembles were intended to exactly replicate the WTC towers.

The complete and unlikely destruction of these three buildings is not worth investigating. Hmmm.

What happened after the collapse started does not answer any worthwhile questions. The only thing that matters is what caused the collapse to start. NIST has answered that question.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:No it means that the test assemblies were created to validate specific parts of the model.

This would be the model that supposedy validates the official hypothesis.

[Figleaf]

Hey Polly? You're an idiot.

Reported.

[PolyNewbie]

Hey Polly? You're an idiot.

Remarks like this show that I am winning so I take them with a certain amount of "pride" for lack of a better word.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind:No it means that the test assemblies were created to validate specific parts of the model.

This would be the model that supposedy validates the official hypothesis.

That would be the model that allows NIST to test different hypothesis to determine which one has the most validity.

Such statements do not change the fact that Hoffman deliberately misrepresents the purpose of the test assemblies. He claims there is some inconsistency when there is none.

[cybercoma]

Hey Polly? You're an idiot.

Remarks like this show that I am winning so I take them with a certain amount of "pride" for lack of a better word.

Does this mean you were clearly losing 10-15 pages ago when you were calling everyone in this thread a "moron" and an "idiot"?

[Wilber]

Hey Polly? You're an idiot.

Remarks like this show that I am winning so I take them with a certain amount of "pride" for lack of a better word.

Does this mean you were clearly losing 10-15 pages ago when you were calling everyone in this thread a "moron" and an "idiot"?

Don't forget "liar". Another delusion.

[PolyNewbie]

Does this mean you were clearly losing 10-15 pages ago when you were calling everyone in this thread a "moron" and an "idiot"?

I used proofs

[Riverwind]

I used proofs

Where? I don't see anything but assumptions, guesses and wishful thinking.

You claimed that hotspots in the rubble 'proved' that explosives were present.

However, you have no actual temperature measurements to back up that claim (the satellite data from the USGS shows much lower temperatures than you claimed).

You claimed that molten steel in the rubble 'proved' that explosives were present.

However, you have no evidence that material was actually steel or if it was actually molten.

You claimed that energy deficit in the collapse 'proves' that explosives were used.

However, you have no data that shows how much matter was ejected during the collapse. Nor do you have any accurate measurement for how long the collapse took (even truthies argue about how long the collapse took).

You claimed that structural engineers supported your beliefs

However, that support is a single quote regarding WTC7 that says nothing about WTC1 & 2. Nor does that quote exclude the possibility that WTC7 came down as a result of debris damage.

You claimed that amater pilots could not fly planes into buildings

However, a former 767 pilot said that it would be possible.

You claimed that the NIST computer simulations contradicted the data they collected.

However, the NIST report makes it clear that data you were looking at is not reliable and cannot be used to draw any conclusions.

You have not provided a single proof in the hundreds of pages you have posted. Every claim you make is based on unproven assumptions and guesses.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You claimed that hotspots in the rubble 'proved' that explosives were present.

However, you have no actual temperature measurements to back up that claim (the satellite data from the USGS shows much lower temperatures than you claimed).

Evidence for CD (PDF).

See last page showing red hot metal being taken from the ground weeks after the collapse.

Leslie Robertson, the Chief Structural Engineer for the Twin Towers, said: "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running" 911 References

You claimed that molten steel in the rubble 'proved' that explosives were present.

However, you have no evidence that material was actually steel or if it was actually molten.

The color of the stuff in the above photo shows it was steel.

Riverwind: You claimed that energy deficit in the collapse 'proves' that explosives were used.

However, you have no data that shows how much matter was ejected during the collapse. Nor do you have any accurate measurement for how long the collapse took (even truthies argue about how long the collapse took).

Videos make this pretty obvious. The building is being blown apart from the top down. Lots of matter was being ejected for the explosions - it doesn't matter how much. You can call it pancaking if you want.

wtc7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds and the destruction was total.

Riverwind: You claimed that structural engineers supported your beliefs

However, that support is a single quote regarding WTC7 that says nothing about WTC1 & 2. Nor does that quote exclude the possibility that WTC7 came down as a result of debris damage.

If wtc7 was demolished and wtc1 & wtc2 came down as a result of a plane crash then (1) Its doesn't change things much (2) Its highly unlikely for one building to have been demolished while two others collapsed straight down into themselves through themselves instead of tipping over and being totally destroyed- as a result of accident. If wtc7 could be wired for bombs so could wtc1 & wtc2.

Riverwind: You claimed that amater pilots could not fly planes into buildings

However, a former 767 pilot said that it would be possible.

There are lots of military pilots that have actually run the sims of the Pentagon and said its nearly impossible. They say it would be difficult to fly the plane into the wtc buildings as well. See Pilots For 911 Truth. These pilots are military pilot instructors, F22 instructors and naval aviators. This annonymous poster on the internet that you quote believes everything gov says and has no more knowledge about automatics systems for aircraft control than you or I do.

Riverwind:You claimed that the NIST computer simulations contradicted the data they collected.

However, the NIST report makes it clear that data you were looking at is not reliable and cannot be used to draw any conclusions.

What I know about the NIST report I learned from Hoffman in his interviews on GunsandButter.net. Do you think Hoffman and his fellow "truthies" should not be trusted because they are just peace mongers whos friends who got him this job are making billions of dollars off this peace ?

Do you think Hoffman had something to do with the 2.3 trillion dollars that is missing from the Pentagon ?

Do you think that Philip Zelikow (a propogandist) is maybe working with Hoffman to help him develop this propoganda after he played a major role in the government created NIST report?

Why do you think there were no qualified forensic scientists working on the NIST report ? Why do you think they needed a professional propogandist to direct the creation of what us conspiracy theorists call the "9/11 Omission Comission" report ?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: Hoffman's presentation deliberately misrepresents the purpose of the floor assembly tests.

exactly, how ?