WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[Riverwind]

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

No proof it is steel. You simply claim it is.

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

A falsely attributed quote. Robertson denies making any such statement.

http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

That link suggests that presentation made by Robertson mentioned molten metal but that quote was later changed to molten steel and then repeated ad infinitum until it becomes 'a truth according to google'.

There were no tests done on the metal to determine what it was or how hot it was. The only evidence is comments by the clean up crews. That is not a proof.

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

Colour analysis of unknown mixtures of substances is inconclusive. Even if you knew it was pure steel (which you don't) the colour is not a very accurate measure of temperature. IOW - colour is not a proof.

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.

"Videos make it obvious" is not a proof. All I see are dust clouds and random bits of matter ejected.

wtc7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds and the destruction was total.

There was no camera that captured the entire event including the collapse into the ground. There is no way to calculate that measurement accurately nor is it relevent since you have no proof that that the towers _should_ have fallen slower than free fall if it was a natural collapse.

If wtc7 was demolished and wtc1 & wtc2 came down as a result of a plane crash then

It still means you misrepresent the claims of professor because he did not say that. Maybe he does believe that WTC7 was exploded yet WTC1 & 2 weren't. Maybe he would change his position on WTC7 if he thought about the contradiction. No one knows because the professor is not telling anyone.

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.

Why would fighter pilot know anymore about piloting a 767 when they are completely different aircraft? The fact that pilots disagree on whether it is possible means that you have not 'proven' your argument.

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 ?

I think they can't be trusted because I keep finding out that they deliberately misrepresent information provided by NIST.

The rest of your posted is nothing but an attempt to evade the issue.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:No proof it is steel. You simply claim it is.

Lots of other refenerences to that being molten steel plus it looks like molten steel. If you need to believe its something else then don't let my comments get in your way.

Riverwind:Even if you knew it was pure steel (which you don't) the colour is not a very accurate measure of temperature. IOW - colour is not a proof.

But we know burning fuel isn't responsible for it and this photo was taken weeks later.

Riverwind:"Videos make it obvious" is not a proof. All I see are dust clouds and random bits of matter ejected.

The ejections of matter that big and heavy shows explosives. Again don't let me stop you from trying to imagine those big chunks of building were ejected by some other reason. The official explanation doens't explain chunks being ejected upward and outward.

Riverwind:It still means you misrepresent the claims of professor because he did not say that. Maybe he does believe that WTC7 was exploded yet WTC1 & 2 weren't. Maybe he would change his position on WTC7 if he thought about the contradiction. No one knows because the professor is not telling anyone.

What contradiction ? The professor of structural engineering merely said what was obvious - that wtc7 was demolished by controlled demolition. Anyone can plainly see that from the video.

Riverwind:Why would fighter pilot know anymore about piloting a 767 when they are completely different aircraft? The fact that pilots disagree on whether it is possible means that you have not 'proven' your argument.

If you actually read Pilots For 911 Truth you will find pilots that have each flown a variety of aircraft, from fighters to jet airliners.

Riverwind: I think they can't be trusted because I keep finding out that they deliberately misrepresent information provided by NIST.

You keep saying Hoffman misrepresents the NIST report. You can't say where and I don't believe you.

[Riverwind]

You keep saying Hoffman misrepresents the NIST report. You can't say where and I don't believe you.

Hoffman says:

"Floor tests were supposed to prove pancake theory"

and

""The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/collapse/floortests.html

Yet if you look at the NIST report here: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5B.pdf

It explains that the floor assembly tests were only intended to verify that their computer models. It says nothing about 'proving the pancake theory' and NIST makes it clear that the the test assemblies did not replicate the conditions in the tower.

IOW - the fact that the floors did not sag in the test assemblies is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is if the NISTs computer models correctly predicted that the test assembly floors would not sag. Hoffman is deliberately misrepresenting the NIST test data when he claims that there is a direct relationship between the results from the test assemblies and the conditions inside the WTC towers.

[Wilber]

If you actually read Pilots For 911 Truth you will find pilots that have each flown a variety of aircraft, from fighters to jet airliners.

All pilots who fly for airlines have flown a variety of aircraft in their careers. The subject has been beat to death in a million cockpits, pubs, beaneries and layover hotel bars as well as thousands of recurrent training sessions given by real experts to real pilots and flight attendants. Been there, got the hat, jacket, tee shirt and glasses. The difference between the great majority of airline pilots and the so called "Pilots for 911 Truth" is the majority have been honest enough to admit to themselves that given the state of the industry, their training and knowledge at that time, if it had been their aircraft on that day, the outcome would most probably have been the same.

[PolyNewbie]

Winnipeg Sun: War On Terror Looks Like a Fraud

by John Gleeson, editor. He says it looks like 911 was an inside job and the war on terror has more to do with the goals of American dominance laid out by PNAC (but doesn't outright mention PNAC for some reason)

So 911 conspiacy theories are getting into mainstream media. Oh Oh.

[PolyNewbie]

Wilber:The difference between the great majority of airline pilots and the so called "Pilots for 911 Truth" is the majority have been honest enough to admit to themselves that given the state of the industry, their training and knowledge at that time, if it had been their aircraft on that day, the outcome would most probably have been the same.

I don't believe that an airliner could be flown in a 6 G spiral at 500 miles per hour. If it could be it would not be easy. (or whetever the exact requirements were - I forget the exact G number & speed).

The idea that wtc7 came down as a result of controlled demolition has been laughed at in pubs, and on the internet as well as other places. I have heard engineers say they believed the official version and I have heard them defend it and make up facts to fill in the empty spaces to defend it. The fact is that it isn't possible.

I don't think ameteur pilots could guide a plane into wtc1 & wtc2.

011 Pilots for Truth are heroic in admitting what they say, but the truth movement does not depend on them anyways. We have wtc 7.

[Wilber]

I don't think ameteur pilots could guide a plane into wtc1 & wtc2.

When it comes to aviation, what you think doesn't carry much weight.

[ScottSA]

Winnipeg Sun: War On Terror Looks Like a Fraud

by John Gleeson, editor. He says it looks like 911 was an inside job and the war on terror has more to do with the goals of American dominance laid out by PNAC (but doesn't outright mention PNAC for some reason)

So 911 conspiacy theories are getting into mainstream media. Oh Oh.

Pssst: that article is not about a 911 conspiracy. But nice, if entirely dishonest, try.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Hoffman is deliberately misrepresenting the NIST test data when he claims that there is a direct relationship between the results from the test assemblies and the conditions inside the WTC towers.

I see. So these NIST tests were not done to verify the plausibility of the official version. I think NIST is full of double speak and Hoffmans excellent interviews on GunsandButter.net lays this out quite clearly.

Its hard for indiciduals to get into the particulars of the NIST report. It stacks 2 feet high and according to those that have read it, designed to confuse rather than to clarify - which was probably why they hired Philip Zelikow and almost the same set of engineers that investigated the Oklahoma bombing, and disposed of the evidence rather than let the FAA and fire authorities do the investigation and letting them examine the actual evidence.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA: Pssst: that article is not about a 911 conspiracy. But nice, if entirely dishonest, try.

From the article:

"With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.

"

[PolyNewbie]

Wilber:When it comes to aviation, what you think doesn't carry much weight.

When it comes to flight paths, g forces and stall speeds and angles I can tell whether an aircraft could follow a given flight path from the numbers. I bet you could not.

[Wilber]

Wilber:When it comes to aviation, what you think doesn't carry much weight.

When it comes to flight paths, g forces and stall speeds and angles I can tell whether an aircraft could follow a given flight path from the numbers. I bet you could not.

Much more convincing than being able to fly the real thing.

[PolyNewbie]

Much more convincing than being able to fly the real thing.

If we know points on the flight path and speeds then the possibility of a plane being able to fly a certain path without stalling may be proven to be impossible. I don't know if thats possible here or not. Perhaps someone has done it.

I saw wtc7, wtc1 & wtc2 collapse so I know 911 was an inside job from only that. Everything else is secondary.

[Wilber]

I don't believe that an airliner could be flown in a 6 G spiral at 500 miles per hour. If it could be it would not be easy. (or whetever the exact requirements were - I forget the exact G number & speed).

If we know points on the flight path and speeds then the possibility of a plane being able to fly a certain path without stalling may be proven to be impossible. I don't know if thats possible here or not. Perhaps someone has done it.

Just for the hell of it I had a quick look at the simulation for AA77 on your PF911T sight. According to this simulation, the aircraft started its turn at about 8000 feet. Why, because he was too close to the building to hit it from that altitude and the easiest way to lose altitude without excessive speed and using too much airspace is to make a 360. The turn was flown at speeds between 260 and 300 Kts IAS at between 20 and 30 degrees of bank. At one point the bank went to 45 degrees but was quickly corrected. Throttles were at idle throughout the turn. This is a normal descending turn. Bank angle for maneuvering in terminal areas is 30 degrees. This is what ATC expects when they give you a turn. Speed is high because 250 kts is the ATC speed limit below 10000 ft. but is not excessive. Control movements are harsh (lots of over correcting) and it must have been an uncomfortable ride in the back but as the aircraft was also descending, G forces would be low. Pitch control was erratic (he leveled off and climbed a little in the turn at one point) probably because he was looking out the opposite window trying to relocate the building. Not an uncommon error when flying a visual pattern. It was not a well flown maneuver but was perfectly safe. I don't know where you got this 6 G idea and at no time was the aircraft anywhere near its stall speed at those bank angles. Pilots are required to demonstrate 45 degree bank turns in level flight at a constant speed during their sim checks. Sometimes they will do 60 degrees or more for training purposes. I have done jet upset recovery training where bank angles went over 90 degrees before we were allowed to start the recovery.

You can make what you want of the final dive, the fact is, he hit the building. You can call it skill or good luck, it doesn't matter. Flight data recorders do not give continuous readouts but are continually updating. It is unlikely an aircraft of the 757's vintage would have had the latest recorder technology installed. The aircraft was traveling well over 700 ft per second at impact so altitude readings in the final moments are going to be arguable.

I don't think ameteur pilots could guide a plane into wtc1 & wtc2.

Possibly not hand flown but given a couple of hours in a simulator it could be easily taught using the autopilot.

[PolyNewbie]

These military pilots that had changed to flying airliners said that many tried it 10 times and couldn't get it. The instructor tried it 10 times and got it on the ninth.

Its a little too odd that the plane killed most of the investigators that were looking into the 2.3 trillion dollars that were missing. Dick Cheney & George Bush got real lucky with this crash. That money missing is no longer being investigated. The one investigator that didn't get killed got big promotions. The plane hit exactly where they were working.

There is also some new info about the Pentagon crash on PrisonPlanet.com - secondary explosions. I would try to make a case for that evidence supporting what is in Seven Hours In September if I had more ineterest in what happened at the Pentagon. I'm not particularly interested in the Pentagon or Pennyslvania crashes because the NY crashes show it was an inside job.

[Wilber]

I looked at the simulation and told you what I saw. You can accept it or reject it, I don't care.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind:Hoffman is deliberately misrepresenting the NIST test data when he claims that there is a direct relationship between the results from the test assemblies and the conditions inside the WTC towers.

I see. So these NIST tests were not done to verify the plausibility of the official version.

The test assemblies were used to validate the the computer model. They allow NIST to show that their computer model correctly predicted the fire behavoir in the test assemblies using a large number of different test assembly configurations. This gives them a high degree of confidence in the results produced by their simulation of the complete tower.

This approach to developing and validating computer simulations is used in many different industries. For example, a semiconductor company never builds an entire chip to calibrate their computer models. They build a large number of test circuits and collect data to tweak their model and later prove that their model works by predicting the behavoir of new test circuits. These similations end up being extremely accurate even thought the test circuits did not have a direct relationship to the final chip design.

I think NIST is full of double speak and Hoffmans excellent interviews on GunsandButter.net lays this out quite clearly.

Hoffman deliberately misrepresented the purpose of the test assemblies. His deception is obvious anyone who actually reads the NIST report. I guess I was right when I said you don't read anything other than what the truthies spoon feed you.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:His deception is obvious anyone who actually reads the NIST report.

That makes it sound like you have read the NIST report. You haven't, few people have.

Riverwind: They allow NIST to show that their computer model correctly predicted the fire behavoir in the test assemblies using a large number of different test assembly configurations. This gives them a high degree of confidence in the results produced by their simulation of the complete tower.

Based on what ?

Riverwind:even thought the test circuits did not have a direct relationship to the final chip design.

I thought they would - I mean I my chip design course they would have. It certainly makes sense that these sub circuits would behave as the chip if that it the way this is done, which I do not believe it is.

Riverwind:I guess I was right when I said you don't read anything other than what the truthies spoon feed you.

I think I was right by calling you a liar. You didn't read that two foot high stacked report. Even if you did read the entire NIST report you do not have the scientific knowledge to draw conclusions from it as you have shown in your past scientific statements that you really have no idea about what you are talking about.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind:His deception is obvious anyone who actually reads the NIST report.

That makes it sound like you have read the NIST report. You haven't, few people have.

I gave you the link. Read it yourself. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5B.pdf. That report makes it is quite obvious that I am right and Hoffman is wrong. Even to someone with limited understanding of scientific matters such as yourself.

Frankly, I doubt Hoffman actually read the entire report. He would not have made claims that can be so easily proven if he had. He may have read through sections of the report (as have I). But he could not have read the section I linked to above. If he has then he is either incompetent or a liar.

I thought they would - I mean I my chip design course they would have. It certainly makes sense that these sub circuits would behave as the chip if that it the way this is done, which I do not believe it is.

You cannot predict the thermal behavior of an entire chip from the results for individual test circuits. Test circuits that run fine on their own will fail when combined in ways that change heat dissipation characteristics. The same thing is true of the the WTC test assemblies. The heat dissipation behavior of isolated test assemblies will be different from the complete towers. This is explained in the NIST report.

I think I was right by calling you a liar. You didn't read that two foot high stacked report.

I never said that I read the entire report. I said: "I have read through pieces of the report (mostly the fire and collapse analysis). "

I notice you do the same thing as Hoffman. Fabricate claims an repeat the falsification over and over again hope that people will be stupid enough to believe you.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind, mind giving a page number on the above document ?

The aspect of 911 that proves it was an inside job is the expedient and orderly manner in which the buildings collapsed. NIST does not investigate this or the sebsequent total destruction of the buildings. I don't consider the NIST reporet even relevant to the critical aspect of 911, thats why it can be fairly characterized as a white elephant.

[Wilber]

These military pilots that had changed to flying airliners said that many tried it 10 times and couldn't get it. The instructor tried it 10 times and got it on the ninth.

Interesting. Poorly trained Kamikazis were able to hit moving ships a fraction of the size of the Pentagon while being shot at by hundreds of anti aircraft guns.

[PolyNewbie]

Interesting. Poorly trained Kamikazis were able to hit moving ships a fraction of the size of the Pentagon while being shot at by hundreds of anti aircraft guns.

Actually they normally missed or got shot down. They were not an affective weapon - they were a weapon created out of desperation.

[Wilber]

Interesting. Poorly trained Kamikazis were able to hit moving ships a fraction of the size of the Pentagon while being shot at by hundreds of anti aircraft guns.

Actually they normally missed or got shot down. They were not an affective weapon - they were a weapon created out of desperation.

True, most were shot down before they got to their targets and they were too little too late but that doesn't alter the fact they sunk or damaged over 400 ships and caused around 10,000 casualties.

[ScottSA]

Interesting. Poorly trained Kamikazis were able to hit moving ships a fraction of the size of the Pentagon while being shot at by hundreds of anti aircraft guns.

Actually they normally missed or got shot down. They were not an affective weapon - they were a weapon created out of desperation.

They were an extremely effective weapon you idiot. Do you always just make stuff up? Kamakazis got shot down because they were travelling at half the speed of a modern airliner at a moving ship, bristling with guns, a fraction of the size of the WTC. Was the WTC cruising along the streets of NY at several knots pumping lead at the airliner? Did US ships just ignore the kamikazes under the assumption that they would never get hit, because, well, no one could manage to hit anything with a plane, after all.

Christ, listen to yourself.

[Wilber]

They were an extremely effective weapon you idiot. Do you always just make stuff up? Kamakazis got shot down because they were travelling at half the speed of a modern airliner at a moving ship, bristling with guns, a fraction of the size of the WTC. Was the WTC cruising along the streets of NY at several knots pumping lead at the airliner? Did US ships just ignore the kamikazes under the assumption that they would never get hit, because, well, no one could manage to hit anything with a plane, after all.

Not to mention the fighter cover provided by carriers often outnumbered them by a factor of several to one. Many of them never got within sight of the ships because of it.