WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

Riverwind I should remind you here: I don't need to prove that I am right. I only need to demonstrate that your claim is not proven.

Many of the NIST claims are not proven either, this one included. The evidence was destroyed.

One can look at the link and decide whether that glowing red material is molten iron or it is molten aluminum with little bits of glowing red furniture that makes that material look homogeneous in nature. To me, molten aluminum with little bits of glowing furniture seems unlikely. There is ample evidence of high temperatures that would be associated with high temperature explosives.

Stephen Jones will be comming out with new evidence of thermate being used. It will be announced tonight at U of Texas. We will likely hear about it and be able to see the video. The evidence consists of small spheres of iron with impurities of sulfur and aluminum. The spherical shape of these particles indicates high temperatures were involved.

The U shaped bent beam would have cracks & stress lines in it if the beam was bent at fuel burning temperatures. The shape of this bent beam is unlikely created in any kind of normal circumstances.

If NIST had any credibility the nature of this red hot material would be exactly know as the result of a properly conducted investigation.

Apologists can explain things away using any unlikely scenario that fits withing the official version, but more evidence will always come to surface.

The US government and the people that investigated the wtc collapses do not have a lot of credibility. The head investigator had a wiki definition that included the words "maintainance of public myths" in his own definition. This part of his own definition has since been taken down.

The same engineers that investigated 911 investigated wtc '93 and the Oklahoma Murrah building. Funny that fire inspectors are not used to investigate these, rather, the government always turns to this same group to explain these highly suspicious events. In Oklahoma & 911 normal investigators were restricted from viewing the evidence. The Oklahoma bombing evidence has been buried and is still under armed guard.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

Riverwind You are the one trying to claim that the metal must be steel so the onus of proof is on you. Jones's lab experiments do not mean much - dropping cold bits of plastic and wood into a container of liquid aluminium is not the same as melting large pieces of aluminium with a large hydrocarbon fire.

I don't think that you are an engineer and I do not think that you are qualified to design experiments of this nature or determine experimental validity. I think Stephen Jones is qualified to design experiments and draw correct conclusions.

cybercoma · April 7, 2007

Riverwind You are the one trying to claim that the metal must be steel so the onus of proof is on you. Jones's lab experiments do not mean much - dropping cold bits of plastic and wood into a container of liquid aluminium is not the same as melting large pieces of aluminium with a large hydrocarbon fire.

I don't think that you are an engineer and I do not think that you are qualified to design experiments of this nature or determine experimental validity. I think Stephen Jones is qualified to design experiments and draw correct conclusions.

Stephen Jones is not an engineer, nor is he an active scientist designing experiments for peer-review. Stephen Jones is a retired physicist from a Mormon University who is doing nothing more than running his mouth in the media. It is stupid to base your opinion off one retired physicist who chased the pipe dream of cold fusion in his hayday. Perhaps you should do yourself a favour and check what the consensus is of the scientific community and the community of demolition experts around the world.

Hanging off Stephen Jones's every word is clearly an 'appeal to authority' who has no authority in this area and is doing nothing more than seeking evidence to confirm his beliefs. There is very little evidence to suggest explosives were planted and I laugh when you suggest that themite may have been used, since controlled demolitions do not use thermite. Do 30 seconds of research on Google and I'm sure you['ll find an explanation why.

Please, just stop with all of this trolling nonsense.

Riverwind · April 7, 2007

Many of the NIST claims are not proven either, this one included. The evidence was destroyed.

NIST's explainations are consistent with the widely accepted story arc which means they do not need to PROVE every last detail. OTOH, truthies are trying to push a theory that is irrational and incoherent when you look at the entire story arc. This means truthies must PROVE everything. If a piece of scientific evidence is inconclusive (i.e. the molten metal) then reasonable people must conclude that the NIST explaination is the most probable explaination because the NIST explaination fits with the most rational story arc.

You know this and that is why you spend so much time trying to falsify the NIST analysis. However, that is a near impossible task because you cannot falsify the NIST analysis unless to PROVE that your explaination is the only possible explaination. You cannot prove what metal was observed in the rubble nor are there any measurements that will tell you exactly what the temperature of the metal was. This means that any conclusion based on the molten metal observations is inconclusive and cannot be used to falsify the NIST analysis.

I don't think that you are an engineer and I do not think that you are qualified to design experiments of this nature or determine experimental validity. I think Stephen Jones is qualified to design experiments and draw correct conclusions.

I think the hundreds of engineers and fire safety experts who worked on the NIST report are much more qualified than Steve Jones. In fact, I think Steve Jones is one of the most unreliable sources of information on this topic because he has staked his entire personal reputation on this theory. This makes him extremely biased because he is desperate to prove himself right.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

NIST's explainations are consistent with the widely accepted story arc which means they do not need to PROVE every last detail.

This is ridiculous.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

cybercoma Stephen Jones is not an engineer, nor is he an active scientist designing experiments for peer-review. Stephen Jones is a retired physicist from a Mormon University who is doing nothing more than running his mouth in the media. It is stupid to base your opinion off one retired physicist who chased the pipe dream of cold fusion in his hayday. Perhaps you should do yourself a favour and check what the consensus is of the scientific community and the community of demolition experts around the world.

Stephen Jones is just investigating how the buildings were actually demolished. There is no shortage of scientific people that say 911 was an inside job. That includes structural engineers.

Stephen Jones has a very impressive resume having been the principle investigator for cold fusion for the department of energy. Obviously the guy is very credible to be trusted with something as possibly groundbreaking as cold fusion by the government.

Jones is good because he is finding physical evidence. Many people cannot understand that the fact that 911 was an inside job can be proven from only the videos and the expedient and organized collapse of the towers. Many people need something concrete to prove it.

cybercoma · April 7, 2007

NIST's explainations are consistent with the widely accepted story arc which means they do not need to PROVE every last detail.

This is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous just because one minute detail is not fully explained, although it is (you just believe it isn't). The damage to WTC7 was extensive on the south side of the building and the collapse began from the point of damage. End of story. There was no controlled explosion. There was no thermite used. You have no logical evidence of that happening, other than to argue ad nauseum about molten steel/aluminum. That's hardly extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim. If it were controlled demolition you should be able to disprove the other theory with ease. You have no sources that said they were involved in wiring the buildings (a huge task), you have no motive other than assume Silverstein stood to make a huge amount of money and was taking advantage of the situation (in which case there wasn't at all enough time for WTC7 to be wired for demolition), you haven't proven ANYTHING or given any sort of logical reason for believing that it was controlled demolition...

THAT is what's ridiculous.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

I think the hundreds of engineers and fire safety experts who worked on the NIST report are much more qualified than Steve Jones.

Where is this list ?

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

cybercoma The damage to WTC7 was extensive on the south side of the building and the collapse began from the point of damage. End of story.

No. There wasn't much damage to wtc7 at all - only a few fires. That is evident from photos shown in this link

Von Romero / Rense. Romero has taken these words back and is now a highly paid lobbyist at the White House (ie paid off).

You guys should tell NIST & FEMA how wtc7 collapsed because they don't know yet. Riverwind has claimed to be an engineer, perhaps he can teach NIST & FEMA a few things.

sharkman · April 7, 2007

I would like to add my complaint to others that this thread is in the wrong catagory.

DogOnPorch · April 7, 2007

No. There wasn't much damage to wtc7 at all - only a few fires.

Not damage?

--------------------------------------------------------------

The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave. It's the age-old struggle: the roar of the crowd on the one side, and the voice of your conscience on the other.

---General Douglas MacArthur

ScottSA · April 7, 2007

NIST's explainations are consistent with the widely accepted story arc which means they do not need to PROVE every last detail.

This is ridiculous.

No, he's just talking above your level of comprehension. Consider this: A jeep crashes into a tree at the side of a busy highway. Hundreds of people see it happen, and testify later that a semi veered at the jeep just before it crashed. Later, it turns out that someone videotaped the thing happening, and sure enough, it shows a semi veering toward the jeep just before the jeep shot off the highway into the tree. The trouble is, there are a couple of unanswered questions: all four tires on the jeep are flat, and the windshield was found an unreasonable distance away. A tire specialist, when pushed, claims that it's not likely that all four tires would go flat from an accident of this type, and that in fact he's never seen it happen before. An aircraft designer, when pushed, claims that it's impossible for the windshield to fly the distance it did, given the speed the jeep was travelling, and the aerodynamics of the windshield. So what is the obvious conclusion?

A ) That a large plot involving the top echelons of Ford and Chevrolet engineered through nefarious means explosions that blew out all four tires, and in a residual blast the windshield too, so that people would think jeeps are dangerous and stop buying them, allowing Ford and Chevrolet to introduce a new line of vehicles which will absorb the former market for jeeps.

B ) That the semi caused the accident and some unexplained things happened.

Riverwind is trying to introduce you to the standard of reasonable probability or, in other words, Occam's razor.

Riverwind · April 7, 2007

NIST's explainations are consistent with the widely accepted story arc which means they do not need to PROVE every last detail.
This is ridiculous.

We have an observation: glowing metal like matter extracted from the rubble.

We have two theories:

1) The matter is aluminium mixed with hydrocarbons heated by the hydrocarbon fires.

2) The matter is steel heated by thermite and/or explosives.

Neither theory can be proven with the data available since nobody actually measured the temperature of the matter or checked its chemical composition.

So which theory should be given more weight? The theory that presumes a government plot to murder 3000 of its own citizens or the theory that presumes a plot by Islamic radicals with a long standing grudge against the US/Americans?

The NIST theory is more probable and therefore should be given more weight. This is the way science works. You know this and that is why you always try to claim that the NIST theory is 'scientifically impossible'. However, every scientific 'proof' (e.g. the molten metal) that you have provided to back up that claim has been shown to be inconclusive. If the data is inconclusive then the only rational conclusion is that the most probable theory is correct.

To be fair, truthies do not need to prove every detail of their theories to be taken seriously. However, they must provide some conclusive evidence that can only be explained by their theory. That is where confessions by conspirators come in. The fact that no conspirators have come forward (even anonymously) to confess their role in the hoax of the century is extremely strong evidence that no such people exist. That is why truthie 'science' is dismissed as the ravings of lunatics by many people. IOW - steven jones should not be wasting his time creating more inconclusive experiments regarding thermite. He should be looking for the conspirators because without them his science is nothing.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

The NIST theory is more probable and therefore should be given more weight. This is the way science works.

No. This is not the way science works. You constantly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea how science works and your statements in this regard can almost always be shown to be wrong.

Riverwind is trying to introduce you to the standard of reasonable probability or, in other words, Occam's razor.

Neither of you understand Occams Razor. There are a few glaring anomolies in the official version that prove it to be impossible. The manner in which all three buildings collapsed alone shows the official version to be impossible.

Occams Razor does not guarentee that the most simple minded explanation is the most correct.

In that jeep example above, clearly other significant forces were directly involved in the accident than the simple explanation you would accept.

In the case of 911, no one dissagrees with what is on video tape except the hot metal but there is plenty of other evidence that shows high temeratures other than tape of the actual colapses and the times immediately before.

cybercoma · April 7, 2007

The NIST theory is more probable and therefore should be given more weight. This is the way science works.

No. This is not the way science works.

End of thread. PolyNewbie doesn't understand the way science works, nor is he/she willing to look at all sides of the storyl.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

cybercoma PolyNewbie doesn't understand the way science works, nor is he/she willing to look at all sides of the storyl.

Educate me. How does science work ?

What the f*ck is a razor anyways ?

I'm a guy. I stuck with the name PolyNewbie so that morons could expose themselves by calling me "Polly". Its like leaving a $5.00 bill on the counter and testing a buddy who is to look after your place.

Riverwind · April 7, 2007

No. This is not the way science works. You constantly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea how science works and your statements in this regard can almost always be shown to be wrong.

By who? You certainly have not shown that any of my claims are wrong. You bluff and whine a lot but you never actually produce a counter argument.

Science is about probabilities - not absolutes. Complex systems are difficult to analyze and it is virtually impossible to prove most theories regarding their behavior. Different theories and different models will often produce conflicting results. Credible scientists understand this and will use the probability test to determine which models make the most sense.

There are a few glaring anomalies in the official version that prove it to be impossible.

There NO anomalies in the widely accepted explaination that 'prove it to be impossible'. This is a fiction that you repeat over and over again and hope there will be people dumb enough to accept your word.

In the case of 911, no one dissagrees with what is on video tape except the hot metal but there is plenty of other evidence that shows high temperatures.

Temperatures as high as 1000 degC are normal for hydrocarbon fires. There is no conclusive evidence of temperatures higher than that. The only evidence that you have presented is the molten metal and USGS satellite measurements - neither of which support your claim.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

Riverwind You certainly have not shown that any of my claims are wrong.

What about these

Riverwind Quotes

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

2. "Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

3. "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."

4. "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."

So what kind of engineer are you ?

Science is about probabilities - not absolutes.

All of the above scientific statements are absolutely wrong.

Riverwind · April 7, 2007

Riverwind You certainly have not shown that any of my claims are wrong.
What about these
Riverwind Quotes

I don't see any counter argument. All I see are out of context quotations from posts I made.

All of the above scientific statements are absolutely wrong.

I have backed up my statements. Yet you seem to think that people should accept your word. Why should anyone take your word?

I repeat my explanation of my previous statements because it will simply demonstrate your own inability to engage in a discussion based on science:

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

The laws of thermodynamics only apply if no energy or matter crosses the boundary of the system you are analyzing. If energy or matter can cross the system boundary then the total energy of the system can increase or the entropy could decrease. IOW - the laws of thermodynamics can only be applied to "closed systems".

"Thermodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

Thermodynamics is the study of energy - it does not provide any insights into what keeps buildings standing and why they might collapse.

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

This example illustrates clearly that it is possible for a structure to collapse straight down even if it experiences asymmetric damage. Once one leg fails the entire load MUST be supported by the remaining legs - no other outcome is physically possible. In my first example, I over simplified things by assuming the load would be equally distributed among the remaining legs. After you complained about that I re-did the analysis assuming an unequal distribution and demonstrated that the distribution of the load across the legs had no effect my conclusion that a straight down collapse is possible.

"Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy."

Heat is energy. Combustion converts energy stored in chemical bonds to heat. In a closed system this energy has to go somewhere - I assume it will continue to go into heating the system. I asked you to provide an alternate explanation but you refused.

PolyNewbie · April 7, 2007

Riverwind Heat is energy. Combustion converts energy stored in chemical bonds to heat. In a closed system this energy has to go somewhere - I assume it will continue to go into heating the system. I asked you to provide an alternate explanation but you refused.

I said I would prove you wrong if you would go away and stop clogging threads with scientific nonsense.

I also asked what kind of engineer you were.

Riverwind · April 8, 2007

I said I would prove you wrong if you would go away and stop clogging threads with scientific nonsense.

If you actually had a counter argument you would have posted it already. We were discussing the nature of science before you decided to evade the issue by posting irrelevant comments....

It is quite difficult to precisely model complex systems such as a building - especially under extreme conditions. It is impossible to prove that any model is 100% correct and any analysis will have unexplained bits. That is why NIST does not need to prove everything - NIST only needs to show that their explanation is the most probable given the available evidence. That is also why the pseudo-scientific analyses by thruthies means nothing unless they can address the fact that their story arc is extremely improbable.

PolyNewbie · April 8, 2007

If you actually had a counter argument you would have posted it already. We were discussing the nature of science before you decided to evade the issue by posting irrelevant comments....

The whole point is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about wrt science. Everything you say is wrong or shows that you are not educated - you have answered a few questions in a text book somewhere and probably got the answers wrong but even if you got the right answers this does not constitute an education.

It is quite difficult to precisely model complex systems such as a building - especially under extreme conditions. It is impossible to prove that any model is 100% correct and any analysis will have unexplained bits.

Not true. I can say that the wtc buildings would never float with the same degree of certainty that I can say there wasn't enough potential energy in the buildings to allow them to destroy themselves the way they did on 911. There had to have been bombs.

stignasty · April 8, 2007

Poly can not produce a counter argument so he must resort to straw men.

There are a few glaring anomalies in the official version that prove it to be impossible.
There NO anomalies in the widely accepted explaination that 'prove it to be impossible'. This is a fiction that you repeat over and over again and hope there will be people dumb enough to accept your word.

Let this be the final word until Poly can produce a counter argument to demonstrate the alleged anomalies in the widely accepted explaination.

Riverwind · April 8, 2007

Not true. I can say that the wtc buildings would never float with the same degree of certainty that I can say there wasn't enough potential energy in the buildings to allow them to destroy themselves the way they did on 911. There had to have been bombs.

A simple calculation also shows that a few tonnes of explosives would add in an insignificant amount of energy to the system when compared to the potential energy of the towers. This means that explosives, on their own, could not have provided enough additional energy to cause the collapse if your energy calculations are correct. The only rational conclusion is that your energy calculations are wrong since we know the towers did collapse.

Here is a excellent explaination for the collapse of the towers that is easier to read than the NIST report:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

The author is:

Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT

Someone who is infinitely more qualified to comment on the topic than any of the thruthies.