[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

There is ample evidence of a plane crashing into the pentagon. Your buddy is either wrong or lying.

Like all the video of flight 77 that was released?

And backing you up is pretty much the NIST report and the Bazant thesis. Neither of those two sources are worth the energy needed to display them on a computer screen. Anyone who understands the basics of science and knowledge production sees this after just browsing these sources. So unless you are prepared to produce a peer reviewed paper establishing the conclusions of these sources, or you have other sources, you have nothing.

You keep saying this, yet you won't tell us why. Not a single equation in the calculus of Newtonian physics. A more cynical man than I might start to suspect that you're just making **** up.

This is where I disagree with my fellow skeptics. I think there is ample evidence that there was a plane which crashed into the Pentagon. As to why they won't release all the videos and settle the matter I can only speculate. The plane into the Pentagon is a good example of there being evidence of a phenomenon but not all the evidence one would expect and extra observations which are not anticipated. The real world is an unpredictable place. Even in very controlled experiments you see results which were never expected.

Maybe it's pride? Some of these people actually take the defense of the Pentagon as a serious and emotional issue. They might no want that footage out there which makes us look vulnerable.

Maybe they want to have a trump card they can pull out to make the conspiracy crowd look stupid and diminish beliefs in other, valid claims should there be a revival of interest in the topic.

My cousin was mowing the lawn at shanksville and pretty much confirmed that no plane crashed there. There's basically no jet material anywhere.

NIST doesn't even release the inputs into their simulation of the collapse. But they do reveal that they make a lot of wild assumptions favorable to their thesis.

In one example, they make the assumption that all fireproofing is stripped cleanly from every beam in the impact zone. This is so they can crank up the temperature on the beams and get them to "behave". The justification for this is an "experiment" they did in which they put a steel beam with fireproofing in front of a gun and shot the fireproofing on the beam. The fireproofing fell off, and from this they extrapolated the justification that the plane impact dislodged all fireproofing in a large multi-floor zone. That means the fireproofing which wrapped around every contour of the beam is supposedly instantly gone on plane impact. This is the level of derangement we are dealing with in the NIST report. If you don't see this as invalid there is nothing I can do for you.

They also totally neglected to account for the heat sinking capabilities of the surrounding steel lattice and steel core of the building. They just leave that out. If we can't agree that that is invalid then we don't need to be discussing this.

These are just two of many laughable blunders made by NIST in order to coerce the data into their thesis. There are others.

I did not limit the type of evidence I was referring to to only video evidence. If you have questions about what type of evidence was available, feel free. There is WAY more than video evidence.

Can you link the relevant part of the NIST report please?

Sorry I made that post and went to sleep. Looks like Gorg did some work which was nice because I honestly didn't want to go through that stuff.

There is a lot of structural elements involved in supporting and protecting the steel columns in wtc7. Regardless of the damage the building took and the damage it may have done to the supporting structures aiding the building (no one knows for sure the exact damage it did) we do know that the columns on the side of the building that was damaged and on fire collapsed first. You also can't have a building like that burn (since they were unable to put out the fire) for that long and not have it lead to serious structural damage for that location of the buiidling.

Sure, no building prior to this above about 15 stories or whatever has collapsed like this but that really isn't saying a lot lot since we don't have a large sample size of 100 story buildings falling next to it causing pretty credible damage + no one able to put out the fires.

I'd say with wtc 7 just like with wtc1 and 2 that if they fires were put out, all the buildings would still be standing. But they couldn't, and the reasons why they couldn't is due to an extremely uncommon cause of how the fires started in the first place that we also haven't ever seen.

Can I ask what your qualifications are vis-a-vis understanding the basics of science?

When they taught us the scientific method in grade school I was like duh, who doesn't already know that? But it turns out most people don't. It might be a genetic adaptation. It's like how even apes have modus ponens. I was born with the scientific method in my DNA somewhere.

It's probably because you're an innate genius, as you always suspected. Now that's out of the way, could you please post a link to the part of the NIST report you referenced? I'm actually going to read it if you do.

I'm not trying to do a bunch of work I've already done. There is a video of NIST shooting the fireproofing floating around somewhere. I might track that down just because it's joyful to watch.

Without a reference showing that they relied solely on the experiment shown in the video for their conclusions, the video itself is not dispositive evidence of your claim.

Not to mention that modern buildings are built from designs that use knowledge we actually learned from 9/11.

Jeez, getting our resident logician genius to provide one reference for his claims is like extracting teeth. The man has time to churn out walls of text for the duration of a 250+ post thread, but can't take 5 minutes to give one reference.

god forbid you do any work to support any claims you've made in the new conspiracy thread you started

here is the NIST report for building 7. this isn't responsive to what d2_e4 is looking for but it's relevant for these other wtc7 discussions:

[QUOTE=formula72]Regardless of the damage the building took and the damage it may have done to the supporting structures aiding the building (no one knows for sure the exact damage it did) we do know that the columns on the side of the building that was damaged and on fire collapsed first.[/quote]

the NIST report suggests it was a column on the opposite end of the building (from the structural damage) that collapsed first:

"The structural damage to WTC 7 was primarily located at the southwest corner and adjacent areas of the west and south faces, on Floors 5 through 17." (p. 50)

"The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79, which was an interior column in the northeast region of the building." (p. 21)

[quote=formula72]Sure, no building prior to this above about 15 stories or whatever has collapsed like this but that really isn't saying a lot lot since we don't have a large sample size of 100 story buildings falling next to it causing pretty credible damage + no one able to put out the fires.

I'd say with wtc 7 just like with wtc1 and 2 that if they fires were put out, all the buildings would still be standing. But they couldn't, and the reasons why they couldn't is due to an extremely uncommon cause of how the fires started in the first place that we also haven't ever seen.[/quote]

the significant fires that NIST identified as contributing to the collapse were primarily on 6 floors (7-9 and 11-13). the report emphasizes that unlike the WTC towers, where fires spread rapidly due to jet fuel, the fires in WTC 7 spread more slowly from one area to another, similar to typical office fires. the fires on these 6 floors were fed by ordinary office combustibles and burned for a prolonged period due to the lack of functioning sprinklers.

"Unlike the case for the two WTC towers, there was no widespread spraying of jet fuel to ignite numerous workstations or offices simultaneously. Rather, in the earlier hours of the fires, following the debris impact due to the collapse of WTC 1, the fire would have spread from one individual workstation or office to another." (p. 19)

"The fires on these six floors were fed by combustibles (e.g., desks, chairs, papers, carpet) that were ordinary for commercial occupancies." (p. 51)

the total collapse contrasts with a sample of other large building fires, which were at least as tall as wtc7 or had more floors burning for longer duration. these include One New York Plaza, First Interstate Bank Building, One Meridian Plaza, Windsor Tower. only one of these had functioning sprinklers at the time. none of these instantly and totally collapsed... only one even partially collapsed.

[quote=Gorgonian]Composite of two images showing the vertical gash carved out of the side of WTC7 facing the towers' collapse.

The entire SW corner of WTC7 was completely gone after the collapse of the towers.[/quote]

NIST report held collapse sequence started on opposite end of building from SW gash and that the gash did not determine the collapse:

"Even without the structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." (p. 49)

[quote=Gorgonian]These "it collapsed into its own footprint people don't even understand how extremely much it DID NOT. It collapsed very sideways, away from the camera point of view and into the buildings across the street. Here are photos of WTC7 debris on the ROOF of buildings across the street.[/quote]

cite? debris can land on adjacent buildings from the blowout force of a building collapsing on itself. video indicates very much straight down. NIST report describes the descent only as "downward" with no indication of sideways / angular collapse:

"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence." (p. 23)

would be interested what you've read indicating it "collapsed very sideways"

Ok but do you think they would attempt a stunt like that if they weren't desperate to ensure a mandated conclusion which they couldn't legitimately reach?

I think if I did that for a high school science experiment my teacher would think there is something wrong with me. That kind of desperation happens when people absolutely need to make a lie the truth and they talk themselves into thinking some action is ok when it isn't. Luckily for NIST most understand their report is only for symbolic value.

I'm really not qualified to comment on the proper procedure for evaluating the conditions that fireproofing withstands. I'd be interested in reading the relevant part of the report, which might assist me in formulating a more informed opinion on the question.

I posted so many references already in the old thread. There it was often just me vs. like 10 posters. Someone actually tallied my words one year and IIRC it was enough for a 1,000 page book. This is not a serious discussion here for me. We had a serious discussion going once and everyone said what they had to say. I probably posted as much in the I/P thread as in the 9/11 thread and you don't see me much in that current thread either. Most general arguments in there I was making 10+ years ago. Now more people are involved and it's great.

If I was Gandalf I've done turned white already. If I was Robert Johnson I've been to the crossroads. If I was Luke Skywalker I've been drinking green milk from alien titties.

I didn't claim otherwise. I was responding to someone asking for a demonstration of the damage, not theorizing about how the collapse initiated.

Yes. Video from one direction. As you will find if you re-read my post, it collapsed away from the camera, which you cannot easily see in a grainy video.

No it doesn't.

Then go find it. I've dealt with you before and I know better than to even try. Besides, I've read a metric ton on this subject and it was like a decade ago that I last dealt with this stupidity. I don't remember how to quickly find that stuff. You can either accept it or not, I really don't care.

This warms my heart.

I suspect you could have found this reference 10 times over in the amount of time it has taken you to explain how you don't have the time to do it.