900 replies to this topic

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 19 August 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Duh!

So you agree that the molten metal could have been other metals as well yes?

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 19 August 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Of course there's a range. The measurement uncertainties apply to several parameters and by selecting different values of each you get different patterns of damage, each with its own tipping point. Without running hundreds of cases rather than just three, NIST could not determine where all these points lie.

We were not talking about the range of inputs within variable factors, we were talking about the level of damage severity (which the diagram I provided represents). Whichever of the variables are adjusted, this will still converge at a level of damage, and a specific level of damage must still be met to initiate a collapse. For instance, the two parameters of aircraft mass and aircraft speed, however adjusted, result in only one value of kinetic energy. And that is essentially all the initial inputs are about - kinetic energy of the aircraft vs. resistance of the tower - NIST did not need to simulate hundreds of cases to determine the tipping point where the first overcomes the latter.

flyingswan, on 19 August 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

However, there is similar uncertainty in the extent of the actual damage inside the building, all NIST has to go on here is photos of the exterior, particularly the damage to the exit wall showing that parts of the aircraft passed right through the core structure. With all this uncertainty, the overlap between the calculated and observed is sufficient to show that NIST nailed the collapse initiation as well as could be expected.

Again, there is no overlap between the severe (collapse) case and observation. The fact NIST admitted the base (non-collapse) case provided better match to the actual damage rules this out. Please refer to the diagram I provided where you will see that the severe case and actual damage never overlap on the damage severity scale.

flyingswan, on 19 August 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

You bring up these eyewitness reports, but there is no way an eyewitness or a photograph can determine if dripping molten metal is steel or something else. There are no temperature measurements that confirm molten steel. Just because there is molten metal dripping off a steel beam, it doesn't mean the metal is steel. Pull a steel beam out of a pool of molten aluminium and it will drip molten aluminium. You drip water after you get out of the bath, doesn't mean you are made of ice.

I would not, generally speaking, be opposed to assuming numerous eyewitnesses were mistaken. However, I cannot disregard the photographic evidence of a melted beam and the high temperature steel corrosion FEMA discovered, which corroborate the statements. Look at the steel beam John Gross posed with. Where is the rest of it? If the section corroded away through high temperature liquification of the steel grain boundary, that is going to match just what those eyewitnesses described ('beams dripping molten steel'). Your solution of a steel lollipop stick dipped in molten aluminium (or another low melting point metal) is not best fit to the body of evidence, including the physical and photographic.

flyingswan, on 19 August 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

A remarkable argument. It can't be liquid aluminium or lead because it is above their melting temperatures. For you information, metals are liquid above the melting point and solid below. Your temperature rules out steel for what is melting, not aluminium or lead. Once again, it is likely steel being pulled out of a pool of aluminium.

The metal is still in a semi-solid state far above the melting temperature of aluminium or lead which rules out those two metals (at least as a single solution). The presence of liquified steel can be explained twofold, 1) through the FEMA discovery 2) that the dripping substance appears near white hot. But I see - you want to believe no matter what that the glowing lump is a composition of materials coated in molten aluminium or lead, which again achieved through taking the photograph in isolation of the body of evidence.

Just for the record, there is another interesting observation in that the main mass of the material held by the digger is not glowing at all. That indicates a focussed energy source/phenomena raised the temperature of the glowing section, rather than the widespread or dispersed effect of a fire.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 17 August 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Q, quick question, what is the best source of the mentions of the unknown engineer providing the foreknowledge? I've found other quotes by other firefighters talking about thinking it would collapse and was wondering if they can be tied to this guy too, just out of curiosity. I'm in the slow process of downloading the 911 dataset files, that's got a ton in it, don't know if there's something in there where you're getting it. Been a busy week, I'll respond to your posts when I can; oooo, I disagree with you! (shakes fist comically)

Sorry for the delay.

The source of the mention of the advisor(s) providing foreknowledge of collapse is in the link I provided...

The first is from the book September 11: An Oral History, at around 11am:  "According to Captain Michael Currid, the sergeant at arms for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, some time after the collapse of the North Tower, he sees four or five fire companies trying to extinguish fires in Building 7 of the WTC. Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management tells him that WTC 7 is in serious danger of collapse.  Currid says, "The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it." Along with some others, he goes inside WTC 7 and yells up the stairwells to the fire fighters, "Drop everything and get out!""

The second is Deputy Chief Peter Hayden who was in charge of operations at WTC7. In the interview here (19:32) he confirms, ""And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?... And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’"

The above are confirmed by NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder, who in the interview here (50:40), when questioned about the foreknowledge of collapse, placed responsibility not with the FDNY but stated, ""We are aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of building 7. The advice really was focussed on whether or not firefighting operations should be continued in Building 7... So it was the judgement of this advisor or advisors that the building eventually would come down…"

Another useful source are the first responder oral histories, which when pieced together and cross-referenced provide a sequence of events and picture of the chain of command: -
http://graphics8.nyt...es_full_01.html

It is through combination of all the above we know that the firefighter concern was preceded by and originated from confident foreknowledge of the advisor(s).

We have already seen how the judgement of Peter Hayden was influenced by the advisor. The volume of collapse warnings on FDNY radios which flowed from that meant no firefighter judgement could go untouched. For example, here is another firefighter quote that official theorists use out of context: -

"Just when you thought it was over, you’re walking by this building and you’re hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It’s like, is it coming down next?"
~FDNY Lieutenant McGlynn

This gives the impression of McGlynn walking by WTC7, hearing some creaking, seeing the fire and making a judgement call based on that observation that the building may come down next. It was a rational deduction of cause and effect, right??  Wrong...

Before ever witnessing WTC7 for himself we find that McGlynn had been in radio contact with Chief Visconti who had issued numerous orders to withdraw from the area due to the collapse foreknowledge (received from Hayden, in turn from the advisor)!  McGlynn had been specifically informed of the WTC7 condition before making his observation and told, ""We’re evacuating the area. There's another building coming down."  By the time McGlynn came to walk past WTC7, his judgement could not possibly be unbiased.

Do you know McGlynn's own judgement before the collapse foreknowledge was passed to him? He said this: "Any time I’ve heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to be". That is indication that of his independent experience and judgement, he did not believe the entire building could come down.

This situation played out across the entire firefighter ranks - it was unavoidable once the advisor(s) had given the "on the money" warning. We need to be very careful indeed of cherry-picking firefighter statements out of context of events. So, is there a firefighter you have found who you think is judging independently? I'd be interested to look into it.

Edited by Q24, 20 August 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster






Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11;

(i)  By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the facade of each Twin Tower.  

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

[Liquid Gardens]

Q, thanks for the links; I've bookmarked that oral histories page, excellent resource.

Only time for a brief comment; I do owe you some responses to your two longer posts.  I guess it's more of a question than a comment.  Above in the quote from Capt Currid, you mention that he heard around 11am that WTC7 is in danger of collapse.  Is your theory that this also originated ultimately from the one unknown engineer?  I thought that you are trying to tie all firefighters indications of collapse prior to the event to this one person, is this when he gave his 'on the money' prediction?  Or is this one person talking separately to both Currid and Hayden at different times?  Is there some indication of when exactly Hayden talked to this unknown engineer?

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 20 August 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Above in the quote from Capt Currid, you mention that he heard around 11am that WTC7 is in danger of collapse. Is your theory that this also originated ultimately from the one unknown engineer? I thought that you are trying to tie all firefighters indications of collapse prior to the event to this one person, is this when he gave his 'on the money' prediction? Or is this one person talking separately to both Currid and Hayden at different times? Is there some indication of when exactly Hayden talked to this unknown engineer?

It's difficult to know how many people we are dealing with when their identities are anonymous. It might have been just one person on scene influencing the FDNY with their foreknowledge of the demolition, or two, or three. That is why I refer to advisor(s) - as does Shyam Sunder state, "advisor or advisors" (he isn't sure either) - I don't know if we are dealing with the same or different people in each case. What we do know is that the individuals were external to the FDNY.

The discussion where Currid received foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse at approximately 11am was separate to that of Hayden which occurred at approximately 12:20pm. We know that approximate time because the "engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor" to quote Shyam Sunder, provided a "five hour" estimate/countdown which Hayden stated was "pretty much right on the money" (the collapse occurring at 5:20pm).

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 21 August 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

It's difficult to know how many people we are dealing with when their identities are anonymous. It might have been just one person on scene influencing the FDNY with their foreknowledge of the demolition, or two, or three.

If you are going to suggest that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives, you have to provide evidence. No evidence, no case.

Quote

*   Hayden: Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

*   Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

*   WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.  [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Nothing there to even remotely suggest the use of explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 August 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 16 August 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

Yes you have the point correct. Your rephrasing is incorrect.

The FDNY had only a minor concern for WTC7. This was to the degree that firefighers entered the building to fight the fires immediately after the WTC1 dust settled, later stood within close proximity and even entered the building again to inspect its condition, further firefighters approached the building in the afternoon prepared to fight the fires, other firefighters were relectant to leave the debris pile to create a fallback perimeter so little did they find the risk, and even Chief Visconti who broadcast the fallback order over FDNY radios could not at first grasp the order he was asked to convey so unexpected was its nature. All of this can be confirmed in the thread I linked - we see that the independent concern of the FDNY was moderate at best.

The advice received from the anonymous external advisor(s) did not "buttress" the FDNY concern at all but extended it to a higher level and indeed influenced the firefighters' independent actions through the morning and afternoon prior to the collapse.

Q, thanks for the response concerning Hayden and Currid and their interactions with the unknown engineer.

Regarding 'FDNY had only a minor concern that WTC7'.  First, why is the word 'minor' in there?  The quote you provided from Hayden, 'Hayden himself was initially only, “concerned of the possibility of collapse”' does not include that word, have have you designated it as 'minor'?  Does his quote include the word 'only'?  I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but it seems necessary since you are trying to make some point concerning the exact language they have used.

More relevantly, define 'FDNY'.  Is that just the chiefs or the firefighters on the scene who are the source of the accounts of the structural deformations?  Let me back up and see if at a more meta-level I'm grokking where this supposed 'foreknowledge' fits in.  Is it:

1 - an argument for us to eliminate the evidence the firefighters who were at WTC7 had indicating that the building may collapse?  So that if we can discount the bulging, leaning, creaking reports as not being indicative of a possible impending collapse but instead came whole cloth from the unknown people feeding this message to the firefighters, then we have no reason except demolition for why the building collapsed?
2 - an argument that it is incredibly unlikely that our engineer 'predicted' this collapse?
3 - Both?

Your link doesn't seem to address directly why you think that Hayden did not think a bulge was an indication that WTC7 may be in danger of collapsing.  How does leaning and creaking not count either?  You say 'there was no change' in the building condition, except of course for fires burning for 6+ hours...  If you're trying to make Point #1 from this, I can't say I'm buying it at this point.

Concerning Point #2, it appears that we have one statement, "And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’”, to work with.  Not even just the also imprecise, 'right on the money', there's a big fat 'pretty much' stuck in there.  What does 'pretty much' mean to Hayden?  Is it unreasonable to think that 'pretty much' extends to give or take an hour?  If it does I'm not thinking that someone being able to guess a 2 hour time span in which the collapse may occur to be that remarkable or notable.  I think this was mentioned before, but I'm not sure why you don't think lotto winners don't have foreknowledge also.

Quote

The reports of the bulge in the south-west corner of WTC7 come from FDNY Chief Peter Hayden. Can you explain what led Hayden's mindframe to alter from "concerned" about collapse to "sure" about collapse? Was it his own observation of the bulge or was it information passed from the anonymous advisor? Again, the answer is clearly set out in the thread here.

The quote you provided says 'pretty sure', not 'sure', maybe there's another quote though.  Regardless, Hayden concern may have been increasing for myriad reasons:  the reports we've already noted from firefighters concerning their observations of instability, fires continuing to burn all afternoon, and yes additional input from other people including our anonymouses sharing their concern and fears of collapse.  You seem to want to present this as black and white:  it's either his own observation of the bulge or information passed from a nameless advisor(s).  This is a false dichotomy.  I don't know if Hayden personally saw the bulge or if it was passed on from another firefighter; you don't doubt there actually was a bulge do you?

Quote

I know you like to highlight switcheroos and conflicting positions.

Well yes, I think that is legitimate, especially since I'm scrutinizing a theory that is largely circumstancial.  I think that demands consistency with how 'precedent' and 'context' are going to be used.  Of course if there was some good direct evidence of a demolition, there'd be no need for reference to precedents or lack thereof.

Quote

Interesting then you have moved from doubting Zionist agents committed to the cause were available (who would not stab each other in the back and/or lacking money as motive) to now stating that surely there are many of the requisite Zionist agents available.

Whoa, you're confusing different arguments, neither of which are in conflict.  Concerning the Zionist agents specifically, we've only gone in depth on them for a few pages and I'm not seeing where I said I doubted those committed to the cause were available.  What I have argued is that, in response to your 'nonexistent risk' to the perpetrators assertion, I don't know how or why 'they' could be sure that all of the conspirators were loyal enough not to take some evidence to cover their butts or cash in with their story later on; it's about the non-zero risk that the perpetrators of course took on, if for no other reason than it's impossible to predict and think of every possible scenario.  I'm sure Nixon was likely thinking very minimal risk also.

Quote

Also that you said we cannot determine the mens' psychology, now you suggest you would have selected agents to a higher standard - you can't have it both ways.

No, here's the flow of our multi-week argument on this point, I've provided some emphasis to statements that may not have been explicitly clear:

LG:  'They', if they exist, are taking on more risk by demolishing WTC.
Q:  There was no risk.
LG:  They weren't even worried that their fellow conspirators would later turn on them?  It's not unheard of for people to betray others strictly for their own benefit/profit, or even just because they're paranoid.
Q:  These are 'extremists', they psychologically analyze them and check out their dossier, there was no risk.
LG: Okay, I doubt you really can get that kind of assurance and detail from a dossier.  If I grant for a second that it is possible to determine this level of detail about a person from a dossier, how did they not see that these supposed Israeli demolition agents were going to go 100% non-covert and dance and take pictures of themselves in front of the burning towers?  How does this later action by these dolts support your theory that 'they' have ways of finding out exactly how people think and how they will behave so that the risk is reduced to zero?

Either, 1) the dossier analysis failed, which I have trouble thinking that 'they' didn't realize could happen, you can't find everything out about a person short of telepathy; 2) the dossier analysis was successful, they knew these guys were morons and chose them anyway despite some likelihood that better agents were available; 3) they didn't care what these guys did after successfully doing their demolition work, because 'they' knew and were confident they had assessed every possible connection if they had to argue that this was actually an Israeli job because these guys are later caught with incriminating evidence, or 4) these Israelis were not involved in any demolition.  Options 1 through 3 all carry non-zero risks for 'them'.

Quote

I also expect at least a spark of truth behind reports that the Israelis' van was packed with explosives.

I thought I read that there were no explosives and it was only a sniffer dog who detected the presence of them.  There seems to be a suggestion that there may have actually been two vans, since there was one reported stopped on a bridge and another in a tunnel.

Quote

So whilst accepting actions of the agents were suspicious, you suggest it was the polygraph results which were incorrect. And you think we should disregard the possible presence of explosives because the source is unknown. Why make such weak arguments in defense of these men in lieu of a criminal investigation?

Which possible presence of explosives am I suggesting we disregard, the van packed with explosives or the van without explosives that the dogs reacted to?  I'm not sure even what the theory is at this point.  You've already acknowledged the possibility of false positives, what other things may have the agents been moving that generate false positives?   You don't have to disregard the suggestion of explosives, what you have to do is offer some evidence that this has something to do with a demolition of WTC.  I can give you 'maybe', but 'maybe' doesn't do anything to provide support for your demolition theory.

I thought everyone knew that polygraph results are unreliable.  There's a good article on the problems with it in the entry on the Skeptic's Dictionary, www.skepdic.com.

I'm not making weak arguments in defense of these men, I'm waiting for your strong arguments that these guys were involved in the demolition of WTC.  I'm trying to prevent you from trying to take some advantage of the fact that we have incomplete and sketchy information concerning this and using this as being indicative that your theory is correct, when logically it moves us to a neutral 'we don't know if these guys are involved' position.  I don't know what you find so unfeasible about the idea that possibly these guys were Israeli spies but had nothing to do with 9/11.  If they were spies and were caught, well Israel is our ally, you've been making a lot of hay about how buddy-buddy we are, so if their only crime was being caught being spies doing unknown things, then I'm not surprised they were returned to Israel quietly.  I think that's what we'd expect to happen if one of our American spies in Israel was discovered.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Regarding 'FDNY had only a minor concern that WTC7'. First, why is the word 'minor' in there? The quote you provided from Hayden, 'Hayden himself was initially only, "concerned of the possibility of collapse"' does not include that word, have have you designated it as 'minor'? Does his quote include the word 'only'? I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but it seems necessary since you are trying to make some point concerning the exact language they have used.

The depiction of "minor concern" is derived more from the actions I described than the words. An outline of those actions is contained in my paragraph beginning, "The FDNY had only a minor concern for WTC7. This was to the degree... " You see, firefighters entered WTC7 and fought the fires, other firefighters wanted to enter the building and fight the fires, firefighters entered the building to inspect its condition, firefighters remained in proximity of the building until mid-afternoon. These actions suggest a minor concern in that clearly none of the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down on their heads.

This contrasts with the major concern that developed later in the afternoon (after warning from the external advisor was passed through the FDNY radio). The major concern demonstrated through words like, "adamant", "definitely", "imminent" collapse, the fall back order, collapse perimeter setup and even pre-emptive media reports of the collapse so certain was foreknowledge on the scene.

It is clear that during the day the FDNY concern for WTC7 escalated from minor to major (I would even argue from "non-existent" to "certain"). Was this based on the firefighter judgement? No, it is clear, and Shyam Sunder, backed by Peter Hayden, has confirmed, "it was the judgement of this advisor or advisors that the building eventually would come down".

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

More relevantly, define 'FDNY'. Is that just the chiefs or the firefighters on the scene who are the source of the accounts of the structural deformations? Let me back up and see if at a more meta-level I'm grokking where this supposed 'foreknowledge' fits in. Is it:

1 - an argument for us to eliminate the evidence the firefighters who were at WTC7 had indicating that the building may collapse? So that if we can discount the bulging, leaning, creaking reports as not being indicative of a possible impending collapse but instead came whole cloth from the unknown people feeding this message to the firefighters, then we have no reason except demolition for why the building collapsed?
2 - an argument that it is incredibly unlikely that our engineer 'predicted' this collapse?
3 - Both?

The FDNY is defined as the organisation or network of firefighters.

And both, 100% - it is not possible to confidently predict the building collapse from reports of the damage or fires - there is no precedent or engineering rationale for a "pretty much right on the money" prediction.

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Your link doesn't seem to address directly why you think that Hayden did not think a bulge was an indication that WTC7 may be in danger of collapsing. How does leaning and creaking not count either? You say 'there was no change' in the building condition, except of course for fires burning for 6+ hours... If you're trying to make Point #1 from this, I can't say I'm buying it at this point.

Oh Hayden was concerned that a possible degree of collapse may exist, certainly a partial collapse, though it was initially the minor concern discussed above - there was no urgency to move anyone away from the building until his discussion with the advisor(s) after which he became "pretty sure" it would collapse.

Regarding displacement to an external wall in a debris damaged area, this does not indicate that a 100m x 43m base, 47 floor, steel framed skyscraper comprised of 82 columns is about to, suddenly and in its entirety, throw itself to the ground. Likewise the sound of creaking - this is to be expected in any and every such building fire where steel members will expand - it cannot lead to the aforementioned conclusion.

You seem to think that the 6+ hours of burning was significant or somehow damning for the structure, when the realisation this was simply an office fire in a fireproofed building indicates it was not. The fire can only last so long in any given location before it burns out and this could never be a threat to a modern skyscraper - it is impossible and if you read the results of the Cardington fire tests you will know why. NIST kindly confirm this for us also: "None of these columns was significantly weakened by elevated temperatures; temperatures did not exceed 300 ^oC (570 ^oF) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7." Any firefighter who had studied or experience of previous cases would know this to be so... thus reason only non-existent to minor concern of collapse initially existed before the FDNY were influenced. This is why the official theory had to put the collapse down to an unforeseeable flaw of the building design - according to NIST, after the initial debris impact, the condition of the structure did not change until the first floor truss fell off its connection seconds prior to the visible collapse.

It really is necessary to understand just how unprecedented and "extraordinary" (NIST's word, not mine) the collapse of WTC7 and the official theory are. It is not without reason FEMA stated their best hypothesis of damage and fire based collapse (even assuming the diesel generator in the building might have fueled the fire, which was later confirmed it did not) had, "a low probability of occurrence".

No, the deformation apparent, creaking and fire duration meant very little... in every skyscraper fire before or since 9/11 where these features have been present, none have come anywhere near to the global collapse of WTC7. To reiterate, the observations cannot lead to confident foreknowledge of the building collapse.

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Concerning Point #2, it appears that we have one statement, "And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’", to work with. Not even just the also imprecise, 'right on the money', there's a big fat 'pretty much' stuck in there. What does 'pretty much' mean to Hayden? Is it unreasonable to think that 'pretty much' extends to give or take an hour? If it does I'm not thinking that someone being able to guess a 2 hour time span in which the collapse may occur to be that remarkable or notable. I think this was mentioned before, but I'm not sure why you don't think lotto winners don't have foreknowledge also.

I don't think that give or take an hour is unreasonable, though the discussion between Hayden and the engineer had to take place after midday when the FDNY got setup at the scene. Anyhow this misses the point - no one should be making a confident guess that WTC7 would collapse at all, certainly not with a time estimate - there is no precedent or engineering rationale for it; it does not make sense. You only think it does with hindsight and in light of the tower collapses (which themselves were demolitions).

The lotto analogy is not so good as there has to be a winning set of numbers, and eventual winner. The WTC7 situation is more like a gambler putting his house on a 500/1 donkey that's never completed a race, and with some confidence... and then it storms home first place. Now it might be possible... but I want that donkey dope testing and I'll note the suspicious betting pattern.

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

The quote you provided says 'pretty sure', not 'sure', maybe there's another quote though. Regardless, Hayden concern may have been increasing for myriad reasons: the reports we've already noted from firefighters concerning their observations of instability, fires continuing to burn all afternoon, and yes additional input from other people including our anonymouses sharing their concern and fears of collapse. You seem to want to present this as black and white: it's either his own observation of the bulge or information passed from a nameless advisor(s). This is a false dichotomy. I don't know if Hayden personally saw the bulge or if it was passed on from another firefighter; you don't doubt there actually was a bulge do you?

I don't doubt there was a bulge of some description, caused by impact of the WTC1 debris. I think this may be the area Hayden is referring to, above the damaged corner section: -



As mentioned previously, I find this inconsequential; it is not evidence of an imminent global collapse.

Apart from that, Hayden himself confirms it was the advisor(s) who swayed his judgement: "Well we had our special operations people set up with surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement of the building, we were concerned at possibility of collapse of the building, and we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?"

So Hayden observed the bulge and was "concerned" though still very much in doubt asking, "could we anticipate a collapse"? And remember Hayden had already been influenced by this point due to the firefighters who had left WTC7 prior to midday after the separate warning from an OEM advisor (described by Michael Currid). Also Shyam Sunder has confirmed, I can't repeat this enough, "it was the judgement of this advisor or advisors that the building eventually would come down". Not the FDNY - the advisor(s).

It seems you want to believe the FDNY made the independent judgement call that WTC7 would collapse, but they did not - the evidence indicates entirely otherwise. If we take those advisor(s) out of the picture, the firefighters would not have acted the same way or even halted operations at WTC7.

A final query...

How informed are you? I mean have you researched the WTC7 subject previously or is it new to you? I'm just wondering because there's a few of the more common evidence and quotes that I haven't mentioned on this thread. For instance: -

"We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down".
~FDNY Lieutenant Rastuccio

"The Fire Department, and they did use the words, we’re gonna have to bring it down."
~Indra Singh, EMT

"[sound of explosion] It’s blowin’ boy."
"Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon."
"The building is about to blow up, move it back."
"Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up."
~WTC emergency responders


The first two quotes above indicate a plan or intent to intentionally bring the building down, the terminology in the third set of quotes indicates it was put into action. The pre-planned event is further indicated by the urgency on scene in the minutes prior to the collapse: -

"We hear over the fire portable, 'Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse.' Mark Steffens starts yelling, 'Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse.'"
~Louis Cook - Paramedic

"I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that."
~Edward Kennedy – Firefighter

"Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down."
~Matthew Long – Firefighter



Contrast the above urgency and confidence with earlier in the day (the question "could we anticipate a collapse" has become, "adamant about 7 coming down immediately") - it is apparent that some on scene knew what was about to occur, and that it would do so soon - it's the only way the high confidence can exist.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Either, 1) the dossier analysis failed, which I have trouble thinking that 'they' didn't realize could happen, you can't find everything out about a person short of telepathy; 2) the dossier analysis was successful, they knew these guys were morons and chose them anyway despite some likelihood that better agents were available; 3) they didn't care what these guys did after successfully doing their demolition work, because 'they' knew and were confident they had assessed every possible connection if they had to argue that this was actually an Israeli job because these guys are later caught with incriminating evidence, or 4) these Israelis were not involved in any demolition. Options 1 through 3 all carry non-zero risks for 'them'.

It is a combination of 2) and 3). The analysis was successful but would understandably have sought loyalty as the priority over maturity. The avenues were covered, because as we see, even when Israeli intelligence were caught celebrating the attack, with an indication of explosives transported in their van and failed lie detector tests, the investigation is swept under the carpet by politics.

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

I thought I read that there were no explosives and it was only a sniffer dog who detected the presence of them. There seems to be a suggestion that there may have actually been two vans, since there was one reported stopped on a bridge and another in a tunnel.


Which possible presence of explosives am I suggesting we disregard, the van packed with explosives or the van without explosives that the dogs reacted to? I'm not sure even what the theory is at this point. You've already acknowledged the possibility of false positives, what other things may have the agents been moving that generate false positives? You don't have to disregard the suggestion of explosives, what you have to do is offer some evidence that this has something to do with a demolition of WTC. I can give you 'maybe', but 'maybe' doesn't do anything to provide support for your demolition theory.

That is right - there were no explosives in the van because they had been transferred into the towers. The sniffer dog sure picked up on the residual scent though. I'm not sure there were two vans, or one still packed with explosives.

And "maybe" sure as heck does not give confidence in the official story.

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

I thought everyone knew that polygraph results are unreliable. There's a good article on the problems with it in the entry on the Skeptic's Dictionary, www.skepdic.com.

I often hear it said that polygraph tests are 95% reliable. I've had another look after your prompt and the scientific community places it at closer to 60%. Still, both sniffer dogs and polygraph tests are more often than not accurate. To disregard both as mistaken is to believe against the odds.

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

I'm trying to prevent you from trying to take some advantage of the fact that we have incomplete and sketchy information concerning this and using this as being indicative that your theory is correct, when logically it moves us to a neutral 'we don't know if these guys are involved' position.

Ah but "we don't know" is always to my advantage because we should know. In the end I'm the one who would demand a comprehensive investigation of 9/11, it is others defending the lack of answers.

Liquid Gardens, on 21 August 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

I don't know what you find so unfeasible about the idea that possibly these guys were Israeli spies but had nothing to do with 9/11. If they were spies and were caught, well Israel is our ally, you've been making a lot of hay about how buddy-buddy we are, so if their only crime was being caught being spies doing unknown things, then I'm not surprised they were returned to Israel quietly. I think that's what we'd expect to happen if one of our American spies in Israel was discovered.

It's just that when the WTC buildings are demolished and there is evidence of Israeli intelligence, who would benefit from the attack, having carried explosives at the scene, there's an obvious connection to be made. I stand to lose nothing in demanding a full investigation. That's one awful risk you take in settling to presume their innocence. You do know Israeli intelligence has bombed Western targets on more than one occassion before to be blamed on Arabs and coerce the West into pro-Israeli action? And really, you now want to give them benefit of the doubt? Don't you think that is a little naive, and possibly dangerous?

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 16 August 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

I don't understand why you need further precedent for this.

The Skyride Tower demolition used I believe, a 1,500lbs packed mass of thermite per leg. Would you deny that neither the efficiency of thermite or useful dispersion systems developed over the following 77 years? The other examples I provided and military development of thermite show this is not the case.

It's not exactly miraculous - it's all very basic.

I don't need further precedent for this at this point as long as we let go of using 'no precedent' of steel buildings for the WTC7 collapse as some kind of point, which I don't think you're willing to do because of the paucity of any evidence of it being purposely demolished.  You are appealing to explosive devices that you have no evidence of actually existing, I have to assume at least, since the support for this notion you have included are a 70 year old demolition (I sure wish I could find out how silent this was) and a patent application.

If you want to play loose with precedent, no problem, I agree, thermite technology I'm sure has improved to an unknown degree.  This unfortunately lets you off the hook because some things you may need this undefined demolition device to do you can assert it can do because the technology has developed in unspecified ways over the last 77 years.  Regardless, if you're going to get this loose with it, then it would seem to be consistent that we drop the no precedent argument for WTC7.  It should actually be dropped purely because you have no precedent for a building with the same structure as the WTC7 that endured the same events as that building did, that did not fall; this argument is, apples, meet oranges.

Quote

Yes, NIST did a fine job in analysing hypothetical circumstances, yet their preconceived conclusion was not an accurate reflection of the results. NIST simply took the hypothetical result which suited the politically desirable answer and discarded the rest, despite fact that the latter was best match to the actual tower damage.

*LG snipped the middle for brevity*

If you have any further questions on the graph or that would assist understanding then please ask. It's quite a simple concept but I appreciate it can seem a lot to get your head around at first.

I think I just need some fleshing out here, there's a lot packed in each of your statements, so I think I mostly just have some questions at this point.  Is this graph something you've put together or is it part of an NIST report?  I don't have an issue with it, I'm going to have some questions on it and was wondering what the source is.  If you've created it, great, it's a very useful graphic to speak to, well done.

You said many posts ago, "NIST also simulated a “severe case” whereby the factors were altered, within measurement errors, to increase damage to the building. It resulted that the “severe case” caused approximately twice the damage to the core structure and more readily led to collapse in the model.".  Can you elaborate about what you mean by 'measurement errors'?  It just seems strange to have your 'actual damage range' according to the photographic evidence so off-kilter; wasn't the photographic evidence included when determining the 'measurement errors'?  Were they just trying some more extreme scenarios to see what would happen even though there was no chance that those scenarios actually represented reality, or are the two scenarios just the bookends of the calculated feasible range of possible actual damage?  Actually, if you think it's better we proceed by me looking at the study and you give me a reasonable amount of time to digest it, we can proceed that way if you'd rather not just discuss your specific points.  I guess I should double-check too so I know what report to look for, is the graph for WTC7 or the towers?

What's weird at this point is that I look at the graph you provide and think it supports the possibility of collapse due to fire and damage pretty well, it doesn't seem to at least be inconsistent with it.  If it was inconsistent, the actual damage range falling between the less severe and best case would make a better case for that, if I'm understanding what you're showing here correctly.

Quote

There are no examples of fires causing collapse of high-rise steel-framed buildings equivalent to WTC7, despite the many instances of fire in such buildings, not even close.

That's because there are no examples of buildings constructed like WTC7 suffering the events of 9/11 before 9/11. You need more for 'such buildings' than just a generic 'high-rise steel-framed building' comparison.

Quote

I don't see why thermite charges should have to include an audible explosion. We can fire it with an electrical or chemical detonator - the article states that the Skyride Tower thermite demolition was initiated through an electrical charge.

This came from some of the reading I did on thermite, and some sites referenced the need to add an explosive component I thought.  Again, I wish we had a first-hand account of the Skyride demolition and what was witnessed and heard.

Quote

Yes to all! Though there are international experts who dispute the collapses.

You put it well - a gigantic and obvious secret that is easily demonstrated and yet ignored by the scientific masses through disinterest or doubt. It's exactly as the master propagandist described: -

*snip Hitler*

Sorry, in my rant I used 'no international experts'.  Who would you say is the most credentialed, respected, international expert who has dared to come out and state the blatant, obvious, conclusion that tens of thousands of other experts are hiding?  Why haven't the majority of the Russian Association of Architectural/Demolition Engineers (I made that up, you get the point) gotten together with this story and the obvious case for demolition and presented it?  Most importantly, what is your precedent for a gigantic secret like this being easily demonstrable yet ignored by American scientists through disinterest or doubt, this is just like in the past when they stayed silent about what? What is your precedent for a gigantic secret with the same conditions being ignored by those in other countries?  I assume you mean 'doubt' along the lines of they doubt the govt or whoever would/could do this, and not the legitimate doubt that your evidence has shown a demolition to be likely.  In my view you have pretty much eliminated the latter case since you state the demolition is blatant and obvious, most any expert who looks at your evidence must reach your conclusion.  Again, I really think you're going to lose an argument that relies on an analogy between Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany in the mid 20th Century and 21st Century America.

Quote

And we are talking of lies so big as offering hypotheticals that do not match reality (not only in the NIST example discussed further above, but numerous others). We are talking of lies that circumvent the foundations of established physics such as Newton's third law.

As an admitted non-expert, I'm surprised to see you repeat this Newton's third law violation stuff.  You do know there is considerable debate and controversy about that topic, are you really qualified to evaluate the arguments against this?  Maybe you are, I don't know.

Quote

It's some huge and blatant issues and it is worth repeating: "Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."  It is an unfortunate fact that many people want to believe the official narrative of 9/11 and will go some lengths in adapting their beliefs to do so - it sits so much better with their worldview.

Okay, again, reality check:  you aren't even in the ballpark of 'prove'.  Our supposed demolitionists did a fantastic covert job of demolishing the buildings.  It conveniently provides a reason why you don't need to provide more direct evidence of the demolition, but it also inconveniently means you have that much less evidence on which to base your demolition hypothesis.  As far as your second sentence, you can substitute 'CTs' or just about anything in the place of 'the official narrative of 9/11' and it's equally true.

I know the last thing we need is an aside, but I'd just like to note a more high level observation concerning your argumentation.  You appear to me to be the most knowledgable and rational, I guess, 'truther' and in my book you have a lot of integrity, and the way you argue is on the up-and-up; I think your disagreements with me and others here are genuine, and you're not just spouting stuff trying to 'win' any debate.  Hell, you've got other posters here referring to some of your arguments and the cases you've been able to put forth as exemplars.  However, both boony and Sky Scanner I believe noted in your previous thread what I think is the weakest and most vulnerable part of your argument, and that is the degree of certainty you seem to have derived from it.  I believe it was the supposed Israeli agents where you said something to the effect of 'what evidence does it take to convince people'.  I really don't know why you can't put yourself in my shoes and change the scenario a little and see if you'd be convinced.  It is possible that they were in on the demolition plot, it's quite possible they weren't.  I think the idea that they knew some specifics maybe (some of the details regarding this are sketchy) of when the attack would occur is more believable, but it's still possible they didn't.  I don't understand why you think this is some killer convincing evidence though.  This is premature as we haven't gone into any depth yet, but I wonder with some of the things you've said concerning the study that seem very specific (something was 'indisputable') when this and almost all studies are dealing with ranges and likelihoods.  If this was a debate I shouldn't have let you know of my tentative arguments here, I've just tipped my hand, but again, I'm not looking to win a debate or anything.  In case there is any doubt, I most certainly am not disregarding your evidence because of some psychological need to not have my worldview disrupted or some unrealistic ideas about the purity of government.  And I don't mean it as an attack and I'd have to do more work to find more specifics to actually make an argument out of it, and I'm sure that you have a long list of weak parts of my argumentation, the most prominent being that I'm not that educated on all these topics.  Again, just an observation, maybe it's because I haven't heard yet of other evidence that strengthens these evidence points.

Quote

Let's not forget we do have 1,700+ architects and engineers, which include those from the international community, who are dissatisfied with the official theory. That is along with many hundreds of scientists, government, military and other professionals who have also spoken out on record. Not to mention support from a large portion of the public.

And no really good specific explanation why the tens of thousands of experts who must know there was a demolition are staying silent.

[Babe Ruth]

Any "specific explanation" of how or why other people remain silent, unless one happens to be the confidant of those people, is pure speculation based upon silence.  Certainly many people don't want to be treated poorly for 'rocking the boat', as Kevin Ryan was.  Make examples of those who speak out, and a chilling effect is achieved on the more timid in the profession.

And what I wonder on this subject, is why there is not an organization of thousands of architects and engineers who SUPPORT the official explanation?  How many have "come out" in favor of the official explanation?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 23 August 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

And what I wonder on this subject, is why there is not an organization of thousands of architects and engineers who SUPPORT the official explanation?  How many have "come out" in favor of the official explanation?

You have been missing the point, because those architects and engineers are not demolition experts, however, demolition experts on the scene have said there was no evidence of controlled demolitions, which is clearly evident in the videos.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 August 2012 - 10:31 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 23 August 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

The depiction of "minor concern" is derived more from the actions I described than the words. An outline of those actions is contained in my paragraph beginning, "The FDNY had only a minor concern for WTC7. This was to the degree... " You see, firefighters entered WTC7 and fought the fires, other firefighters wanted to enter the building and fight the fires, firefighters entered the building to inspect its condition, firefighters remained in proximity of the building until mid-afternoon. These actions suggest a minor concern in that clearly none of the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down on their heads.

These actions do not necessarily suggest a 'minor concern' as you are stating what firefighters' jobs are; they have a habit of trying to help people get out of burning buildings alive, sometimes even when there is a non-minor concern that they are risking their lives.  You list a bunch of actions they took, but when did they take them?  It's entirely understandable that they may not have thought it was going to collapse at noon but as the afternoon went on and the fires continued and the building creaked and leaned the collapse began to look more and more imminent.

Quote

This contrasts with the major concern that developed later in the afternoon (after warning from the external advisor was passed through the FDNY radio). The major concern demonstrated through words like, "adamant", "definitely", "imminent" collapse, the fall back order, collapse perimeter setup and even pre-emptive media reports of the collapse so certain was foreknowledge on the scene.

Okay, unless I'm missing something, this whole 'pre-emptive' media reports 'argument' is pretty weak.  You think the idea that the hypothesis that this is foreknowledge is more likely than the case that the media has made yet another mistake which it does all the time?  There's a running gag concerning whether the actor Abe Vigoda is alive or dead, after he was twice mistakenly referred to as deceased by the media; I've seen death reports periodically of other celebs that are later retracted.  The media is incentivized to be the first with 'breaking news!', so of course they make mistakes.  And this is surprising during the most chaotic event and probably most media-covered event?  Worse, how does the idea of including in our proposed plot the order that the media be notified by our conspirators that WTC7 has collapsed fit in to anything?  Why would they take it upon themselves to do this and not just let the building collapse and the media report on it?  Yet another bonehead conspirator who isn't waiting for the building to collapse before notifying the media; all he had to do was look at a television.

Quote

It is clear that during the day the FDNY concern for WTC7 escalated from minor to major (I would even argue from "non-existent" to "certain"). Was this based on the firefighter judgement? No, it is clear, and Shyam Sunder, backed by Peter Hayden, has confirmed, "it was the judgement of this advisor or advisors that the building eventually would come down".

You don't have evidence that the sole suspicion that the building would come down came from this advisor. If you think the concern was truly non-existent, then why is Hayden even discussing the possibility of collapse with the advisors?

My main problem with your 'foreknowledge' assertion is this: I don't know how you are differentiating any of these participants' actions as being a result of foreknowledge versus fearful suspicion.  I only have to make a case that the advisors feared that WTC7 might collapse, and it need not be based on sound engineering principles or how other burning buildings have behaved in the past; it can be based on pure confusion and paranoia and the desire not to lose any more emergency personnel, 300+ of whom had just been murdered, and is an entirely understandable reaction.  I think the collapse of the towers was a surprise as that whole morning was, and being cautious provides a far more reasonable, and to me likely, explanation than 'foreknowledge'.  Did these advisors predict the towers' collapse?  If not, do you think they may have been shaken in the confidence in their ability to quickly and accurately make an assessment of something as complicated as a building collapse based on very little data, so they logically erred on the safe side since there were lives at risk?  Their confidence that it would collapse, and thus all the strong decisive adjectives being used, may have increased once firefighting was called off and reports of creaking and leaning were communicated.

Thanks as always for helping me out with your links, here's a transcript of Sunder's fuller statement which restates much of the above, responding to a question concerning the reports that firefighters thought it would collapse and some kind of 'countdown'(?):

"We are aware that an engineer or technical expert or technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of Bldg 7.  The advice really was centered on whether or not fire-fighting operations should be continued in Bldg 7 given the fact that by this time 400 first responders had already died due to the collapse of the towers and whatever remaining resources were there were being directed to other buildings where other fires were ongoing.  So it was the judgment of this advisor or advisors that the building would eventually come down because they were observing in terms of fires in the building and the creaking noises that they heard, and that is entirely consistent with the damaging of connections and buckling of beams in the support(? not sure on this word) system.  This decision to stop fire-fighting operations in Bldg 7 was made around 2-2:30 and beyond that time frame there was no firefighting operations anywhere in that building and the building did eventually collapse at 5:20.  Clearly there was some advice that was given and that is entirely appropriate for advice to be obtained by city agencies to make decisions that are life-and-death for their employees."

This looks far more benign to me in context, and note the repeated use of the word 'advice' and not 'insistence'.  If you listen to this interview, the question he's asked is kinda mangled and he doesn't really address the countdown that is referenced; I think he's replying actually to a more general question about what are these reports of advisors who thought it would collapse.  He is passing on what the judgment of the advisor is; he is not saying that this is the only source of concern for collapse.  He also gives reasons why they suspected it would collapse, the fires and the creaking, and that this is consistent with, yes, structural deformation, and came from the firefighters I presume.

Quote

Oh Hayden was concerned that a possible degree of collapse may exist, certainly a partial collapse, though it was initially the minor concern discussed above - there was no urgency to move anyone away from the building until his discussion with the advisor(s) after which he became "pretty sure" it would collapse.

Again, you are comparing his state of mind at different periods in the day.  His opinion that the chance of a collapse increases after they decide to cease fire-fighting efforts is logical and normal.  There was no urgency to move away from the building until after they had given up firefighting either.  There may have been no urgency to move anyone away because that was before around 12:20 supposedly and they may not have fully assessed the WTC7 damage.  It's not like he got the advice from the advisor and urgently ordered people away immediately, I think it took around 2 hours.

Quote

Regarding displacement to an external wall in a debris damaged area, this does not indicate that a 100m x 43m base, 47 floor, steel framed skyscraper comprised of 82 columns is about to, suddenly and in its entirety, throw itself to the ground. Likewise the sound of creaking - this is to be expected in any and every such building fire where steel members will expand - it cannot lead to the aforementioned conclusion.

There seems to be some dispute about the relevance of creaking, see Sunder above.  Also, here's a quote from a reply to Blanchard's paper found at http://911research.w...hard/index.html .  This is a rebuttal to Blanchard concerning explosions, and is not coming from someone who buys the 'official story':

"The accounts of sounds and sights of explosions at the onset of each Tower's destruction in these excerpts from the oral histories of emergency responders have a degree of corroboration and detail that undermines Blanchard's description of them as subjective and highly interpretive. These witnesses described the sounds as pops or explosions, not as the creaking, groaning, or tearing sounds one would expect if the events were initiated by structural failures such as columns buckling and floors collapsing." (emphasis mine)

Quote

You seem to think that the 6+ hours of burning was significant or somehow damning for the structure, when the realisation this was simply an office fire in a fireproofed building indicates it was not. The fire can only last so long in any given location before it burns out and this could never be a threat to a modern skyscraper - it is impossible and if you read the results of the Cardington fire tests you will know why. NIST kindly confirm this for us also: "None of these columns was significantly weakened by elevated temperatures; temperatures did not exceed 300 ^oC (570 ^oF) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7." Any firefighter who had studied or experience of previous cases would know this to be so... thus reason only non-existent to minor concern of collapse initially existed before the FDNY were influenced. This is why the official theory had to put the collapse down to an unforeseeable flaw of the building design - according to NIST, after the initial debris impact, the condition of the structure did not change until the first floor truss fell off its connection seconds prior to the visible collapse.

The FDNY was not just influenced by the advisors, but also by the passage of time, time that allowed reports of creaking and fires to continue.  They just had two large buildings that were also fireproofed that had just collapsed from fire and damage, and you are trying to argue that they are supposed to ignore this immediate precedent with WTC7 that also was on fire and sustained damage, because the firefighers would just 'know this to be so'.  You can't reference the NIST report which took months and the efforts of several people to analyze and put together and reasonably expect the firefighters at the time to know its results.  Again, all there need be is a fear of a collapse, partial or total, doesn't matter, to explain the actions they took that afternoon.

Quote

It really is necessary to understand just how unprecedented and "extraordinary" (NIST's word, not mine) the collapse of WTC7 and the official theory are. It is not without reason FEMA stated their best hypothesis of damage and fire based collapse (even assuming the diesel generator in the building might have fueled the fire, which was later confirmed it did not) had, "a low probability of occurrence".

No, the deformation apparent, creaking and fire duration meant very little... in every skyscraper fire before or since 9/11 where these features have been present, none have come anywhere near to the global collapse of WTC7. To reiterate, the observations cannot lead to confident foreknowledge of the building collapse.

That may be because 'confident foreknowledge' may not be an accurate term for what went on, and of course presumes exactly what I'm disputing.  Again, since it is illogical to expect the firefighters to realize these kind of details of a study that had not been performed yet, this doesn't do anything to support your foreknowledge theory.  All that matters is what the firefighters and advisors thought and in this case, feared.  Even if we later deem their fear unfounded, that is irrelevant with respect to foreknowledge.

Quote

I don't think that give or take an hour is unreasonable, though the discussion between Hayden and the engineer had to take place after midday when the FDNY got setup at the scene. Anyhow this misses the point - no one should be making a confident guess that WTC7 would collapse at all, certainly not with a time estimate - there is no precedent or engineering rationale for it; it does not make sense. You only think it does with hindsight and in light of the tower collapses (which themselves were demolitions).

How do you know it was a confident guess and not the safest guess at the time it was made?  'Pretty sure' doesn't sound real confident.  There doesn't have to be an engineering rationale for it, there only has to be the priority of saving lives at this point which is logical.  You act like this is just people dispassionately doing physics calculations in a classroom with nothing at stake; I think given what had just occurred and the shock of it, it's entirely reasonable to say that 7 might collapse, better than saying there's no chance and being the one to blame for the deaths of more firefighters if it does.

Regarding this 'on the money' prediction, a 2 hour span is a pretty big window.  Off the top of my uneducated head, I think it's reasonable to assume that the greatest danger of collapse is while the fire is burning.  I'm not sure how long a fire would take to burn itself out, but let's say 24 hours.  There is the other possibility that it won't collapse at all, which as I said above there isn't much incentive to state as a prediction given the enormous downside if you're incorrect.  So we've got a 1 in 12 chance of him picking the correct time within 2 hours.  Super rough calculation, I may have screwed up the probabilities, but if I'm in the ballpark this isn't that unlikely of a guess.

Quote

As mentioned previously, I find this inconsequential; it is not evidence of an imminent global collapse.

But a bulge is evidence of structural deformation.  Why do you think that our firefighters, and advisors who I don't think are actually on the scene, believe that they themselves have all the data they need to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's no chance of a collapse and more firefighter deaths?

Quote

It seems you want to believe the FDNY made the independent judgement call that WTC7 would collapse, but they did not - the evidence indicates entirely otherwise. If we take those advisor(s) out of the picture, the firefighters would not have acted the same way or even halted operations at WTC7.

There is no requirement that it be 100% independent, I've seen references from the chiefs I think talking about 'we' making the determination that the building would collapse and to pull the firefighters, doesn't sound 100% dependent to me.  You obviously do not know that the firefighters would not have halted operations at WTC7 in a different reality.

Quote

A final query...

How informed are you? I mean have you researched the WTC7 subject previously or is it new to you? I'm just wondering because there's a few of the more common evidence and quotes that I haven't mentioned on this thread.

WTC7 is largely new to me prior to this discussion, I knew some of the high level stuff but not about assertions of foreknowledge or Israeli agents.  You have provided a lot of the new detail I was unaware of, so thanks again.

Quote

The first two quotes above indicate a plan or intent to intentionally bring the building down, the terminology in the third set of quotes indicates it was put into action.

I'm really confused on these; the quotes indicate a plan to intentionally bring the building down that the firefighters knew about at the time?  I'm having trouble fitting that data point in, you're not suggesting FDNY was in on the demolition?

Quote

The pre-planned event is further indicated by the urgency on scene in the minutes prior to the collapse: -

*snip*

Contrast the above urgency and confidence with earlier in the day (the question "could we anticipate a collapse" has become, "adamant about 7 coming down immediately") - it is apparent that some on scene knew what was about to occur, and that it would do so soon - it's the only way the high confidence can exist.

At least 5 hours have passed from those 2 points of contrast.  It is not apparent that they 'knew' what was to occur, it is undeniably apparent that they feared it and I believe they had good reason to think it would occur.  Of course there's going to be urgency at even the suggestion of an imminent collapse, it's their lives on the line.  This part of your analysis seems to rely on an assemblage of messages being passed from person to person (I'm sure you are aware of the degradation of the message as it is passed on, a la, the Telephone Game (also called 'chinese whispers' I guess)) and that the parties involved have enough data to know that it won't collapse.  And for no reason that I can think of ignores the most pertinent context of what had actually happened, the impact of those events on everyone's decision-making processes, the chaos and fear and confusion involved, and what was at stake for those at the scene.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

I don't need further precedent for this at this point as long as we let go of using 'no precedent' of steel buildings for the WTC7 collapse as some kind of point, which I don't think you're willing to do because of the paucity of any evidence of it being purposely demolished.  You are appealing to explosive devices that you have no evidence of actually existing, I have to assume at least, since the support for this notion you have included are a 70 year old demolition (I sure wish I could find out how silent this was) and a patent application.

If you want to play loose with precedent, no problem, I agree, thermite technology I'm sure has improved to an unknown degree.  This unfortunately lets you off the hook because some things you may need this undefined demolition device to do you can assert it can do because the technology has developed in unspecified ways over the last 77 years.  Regardless, if you're going to get this loose with it, then it would seem to be consistent that we drop the no precedent argument for WTC7.  It should actually be dropped purely because you have no precedent for a building with the same structure as the WTC7 that endured the same events as that building did, that did not fall; this argument is, apples, meet oranges.

I think the difference is that a thermite demolition device is quite basic/established technology, whereas the collapse of WTC7 by NIST's own admittance was "extraordinary".  So you see why I might request precedent for the remarkable event but not the mundane?  That's how I see it anyhow and apply the use of precedent.

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

I think I just need some fleshing out here, there's a lot packed in each of your statements, so I think I mostly just have some questions at this point.  Is this graph something you've put together or is it part of an NIST report?  I don't have an issue with it, I'm going to have some questions on it and was wondering what the source is.  If you've created it, great, it's a very useful graphic to speak to, well done.

You said many posts ago, "NIST also simulated a “severe case” whereby the factors were altered, within measurement errors, to increase damage to the building. It resulted that the “severe case” caused approximately twice the damage to the core structure and more readily led to collapse in the model.".  Can you elaborate about what you mean by 'measurement errors'?  It just seems strange to have your 'actual damage range' according to the photographic evidence so off-kilter; wasn't the photographic evidence included when determining the 'measurement errors'?  Were they just trying some more extreme scenarios to see what would happen even though there was no chance that those scenarios actually represented reality, or are the two scenarios just the bookends of the calculated feasible range of possible actual damage?  Actually, if you think it's better we proceed by me looking at the study and you give me a reasonable amount of time to digest it, we can proceed that way if you'd rather not just discuss your specific points.  I guess I should double-check too so I know what report to look for, is the graph for WTC7 or the towers?

I put together the graph based on the NIST report and it applies only to the twin towers, the WTC7 study was different.

The building properties and video footage of the airliner impacts were used to determine inputs for the best estimate/base case.  NIST then carried out the following: -

"For the more severe case, the impact speed was increased to the upper bound obtained from the analysis of aircraft impact conditions, while the aircraft vertical trajectory angle was reduced to impart more impact energy inward toward the core. A 5 percent increase in the total aircraft weight was considered for the more severe case, while the failure strain was varied to be 125 percent of the baseline value to inflict more damage on the towers. For the tower model, the failure strains of the tower steels were reduced to 80 percent of the baseline value, and the mass of the building contents was reduced. These variations contributed to more severe damage to the tower structure, by making the tower structure weaker and the aircraft structure stronger.”

To get the less severe case, NIST did the same in reverse to make the tower stronger and the aircraft weaker.

Whilst any individual alteration may not have much affect, I'm sure you can appreciate that the numerous factors above multiplied together made a significant difference to the simulations (approximately twice as much damage in going from the base to severe case).

Anyhow, the simulations that resulted were then compared to photographic evidence of the actual external damage as validation.  NIST found the base (non collapse) case provided a better match to the actual damage than the severe (collapse) case.  NIST confirm this here: -

"The exterior wall was the one structural system for which direct visual evidence of the impact damage was available.
…
The overall agreement with the observed damage to the north wall was good for the base case and the more severe case, with the base case analysis providing the better match to the observed damage."

NIST describe both agreements as "good"... whatever that means... "good"... how scientific.  Never mind, the fact is that the base case match was "better".  This is why, on the diagram, we can draw the right-hand extent of the actual damage between the base and severe cases - we know the actual damage must fall closer to the "better match" base case than the severe case (in direction of the green arrow): -



In the same way, NIST also confirm that the severe case was a better match than the less severe case.  This is why we can draw the left-hand extent of the actual damage between the less severe and severe cases - we know the actual damage must fall closer to the severe case than the less severe case (again in direction of the green arrow): -



Hopefully that explains how the diagram is derived.

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

What's weird at this point is that I look at the graph you provide and think it supports the possibility of collapse due to fire and damage pretty well, it doesn't seem to at least be inconsistent with it.  If it was inconsistent, the actual damage range falling between the less severe and best case would make a better case for that, if I'm understanding what you're showing here correctly.

NIST needed to demonstrate a collapse case within extent of the actual damage.  Or better put, NIST needed to find a collapse case that provided best match to the actual damage.  Without this, NIST have not proven that the collapse is possible within bounds of the actual damage.  NIST failed to prove the collapse is possible within extent of the actual damage, though they did prove non-collapse is possible within extent of the actual damage.  It is bizarre - this is why I say NIST's conclusions are not backed by their own results (this only one of numerous examples).

Given accuracy of the simulations, what the official theory must do to survive, is assume a collapse case exists within the actual damage range and provides best match to the photographic evidence.  But NIST never simulated an intermediate case to determine that - leaving us to argue over a grey area where official theorists have their usual faith and skeptics say more should have been done.

I mean flyingswan, he will argue blind that had NIST simulated a case here (green arrow again), for example...



... that it would lead to collapse.  Because that's what he wants to believe, but he doesn't know.  Why should I take this on faith?  Seeing as it's closer to the base (non-collapse) case I think it more justified to believe a simulation at that damage severity would not produce a collapse.

Why didn't NIST nail it?  Prove it one way or the other.  They could have done.  A real investigation might have asked the question, "Was the collapse initiation possible within the actual bounds of damage present on 9/11?"  Unfortunately for NIST the conclusion was preconceived and they never set out to prove the case.  Or did they try and could not, with the non-collapse case always providing better match?

What I do know is that the only collapse initiation case NIST produced was beyond reality of the actual damage present on 9/11.  The non-collapse case was within reality of the actual damage.  Whose argument does that back?  Honestly.

And this is only the beginning… the next level is in understanding that none of NIST’s simulations, not even the collapse case, predicted the situation on 9/11.  Further manual inputs were required to be made – at which point it became an animation (cartoon-like) more than a simulation.  I have no reason to doubt physics of the models so can only assume the damage and fire process NIST relied on was incorrect.

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Sorry, in my rant I used 'no international experts'.  Who would you say is the most credentialed, respected, international expert who has dared to come out and state the blatant, obvious, conclusion that tens of thousands of other experts are hiding?  Why haven't the majority of the Russian Association of Architectural/Demolition Engineers (I made that up, you get the point) gotten together with this story and the obvious case for demolition and presented it?

By international expert you mean outside of America?  I think Gordon Ross, a mechanical engineer from Scotland, has done some good analysis, amongst others.

I think the Russian Association of Engineers has not got together because this would cause a huge diplomatic row, and they probably don't want WW3, and it would have little impact vs. Western propaganda, and Russia probably value their relationship with America more highly than the regimes which existed in Afghanistan and Iraq in any case.  I don't understand what you think Russia has to gain or why they would care so much about internal American politics or Middle East ventures over the last decade.  Perhaps to discredit the West on the international stage?  The West do a good enough job of that without assistance.

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Most importantly, what is your precedent for a gigantic secret like this being easily demonstrable yet ignored by American scientists through disinterest or doubt, this is just like in the past when they stayed silent about what? What is your precedent for a gigantic secret with the same conditions being ignored by those in other countries?  I assume you mean 'doubt' along the lines of they doubt the govt or whoever would/could do this, and not the legitimate doubt that your evidence has shown a demolition to be likely.  In my view you have pretty much eliminated the latter case since you state the demolition is blatant and obvious, most any expert who looks at your evidence must reach your conclusion.  Again, I really think you're going to lose an argument that relies on an analogy between Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany in the mid 20th Century and 21st Century America.

Why, to an extent, do you not think certain occurrences of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany could repeat in America?  I don't suppose German citizens believed their elected government was all that bad either... after all, it was the Poles and British and Russians and everyone else that started it right?  The obvious truth of Operation Himmler starred them in the face yet the quite innocent masses lapped up the propaganda in their patriotism and supported Hitler, not demanding an inquiry or negotiation.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
~Goering

“We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.”
~Rumsfeld

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
~Bush

The meaning is the same in the end.  I’m not saying the eras are the same - they are far from it in the way of brutality and violent suppression – though there are some notable parallels that can be drawn; the propagandistic techniques are no different, and it really does work the same way in any country.  Perhaps this is unsurprising as the architect of Neoconservatism was educated in the background of Nazi Germany before immigrating to America and providing lectures to the likes of Paul Wolfowitz.

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

As an admitted non-expert, I'm surprised to see you repeat this Newton's third law violation stuff.  You do know there is considerable debate and controversy about that topic, are you really qualified to evaluate the arguments against this?  Maybe you are, I don't know.

It’s so blatant anyone can understand.  Please follow discussion here on Newton and Bazant from post #828.  Poor booNy eventually tied himself in a terrible knot trying to reconcile his own understanding with the official collapse theory, culminating in post #1052 (see green and red text).

That last post is perhaps the best example I have seen on this forum of the quote:  "Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."  Even though the facts that contradicted Bazant were brought clearly to booNy’s mind, even stated in his own words, he clawed for any explanation to fit two contradicting positions.  It’s real and it happens – Orwell described it as “doublethink”.

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

However, both boony and Sky Scanner I believe noted in your previous thread what I think is the weakest and most vulnerable part of your argument, and that is the degree of certainty you seem to have derived from it.

Better that I be over-confident, than misplaced confidence in an argument intended to justify a decade of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Liquid Gardens, on 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

And no really good specific explanation why the tens of thousands of experts who must know there was a demolition are staying silent.

I’m sure I have already addressed in numerous ways and added to it in each post the reason we have ‘only' thousands of engineers and scientists who oppose the official story.  The explanations provided are lack of interest and/or critical thinking and/or a will to challenge authority, internal doubt and/or bias and/or political/patriotic pressuse, fear of the consequences and/or lack of benefit and/or scale of the fight.  How many explanations do we need?

Edited by Q24, 24 August 2012 - 04:18 PM.