Here is a link to a list of the many academic articles that support the NIST report on 7WTC: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/ From the conclusion of the listing: In short, the support for NIST's WTC 7 conclusions is incredibly extensive, robust, and nearly universal among actual structural engineers. In contrast, there are ZERO peer reviewed critiques of NIST's WTC 7 report, ZERO PhD structural engineers on record supporting an alternative collapse hypothesis, and ZERO high-rise specialized structural engineers with any level of degree on record supporting an alternative hypothesis. But I suppose in the mind of a truther, they are all bogus without even bothering to examine the documents.
So you have to somehow be officially qualified to see the obvious? WTC7 was a controlled demolition, PERIOD!
You don't have to be qualified to be influenced by confirmation bias. A Controlled Demolition is just an illogical fantasy continually pushed by a crank element that is rapidly losing relevance. There is a lack of evidence to support such an insane belief.
Ok, Bob, can you please respond to a few points? I'll post them one at a time as too not create a Gish Gallop. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop 1. It is a given that free-fall was witnessed (although we are disputing as to what extent, but leave that point for now)-that, I have no problem with. We also know from the graph I published below (source: femr2), that free-fall was actually exceeded for two seconds. Ok with that? View attachment 32647 It is also a given that the interior collapsed prior to the collapse of the curtain wall we see in the video evidence. Do you agree? If so, have you considered that free-fall was attained owing to the collapse of the interior exerting force upon the curtain wall and pulling it down? That would go some way to explaining the 'missing floors' would it not? It certainly explains why the effect was viewed so late in the collapse sequence (at the 12.5 second mark). If this hypothesis is incorrect, could you explain why? I feel this is a far more logical explanation than jumping immediately to an irrational conclusion like controlled demolition. There are other points to follow, but let's just deal with this in a rational fashion.
Here is the real deal on that bit, ONLY and I say ONLY in laboratory set up experiments can you achieve a condition where one bit of falling mass helps along another bit of falling mass to achieve free fall acceleration that would not otherwise have been possible. To expect special conditions to "just happen" in such a way as to cause many tons of mass to behave in a specific manner is beyond implausible.
In a long-span open floor plan building like 7WTC it is possible that a whole sub-assembly detached during the collapse of the interior, and that could have pulled down the curtain wall in the manner observed. You are arguing from incredulity again. There were many 'firsts' on the day; the first time a long-span open floor plan steel framed building was subject to seven hours of unfought fires owing to the damaged water supply, with the fire-proofing only rated for 2 hours. What we do know is that the interior collapsed before the curtain wall. We do know that the North face collapsed toward the south, thus indicating that it was being 'pulled' toward the center, and we do know that at the 12.5 second mark, free-fall was observed for 2.5 seconds on the North-west Corner. I cannot accept that amongst this chaos, it isn't possible for the interior collapse to help accelerate the collapse of the curtain wall. I still see this as a distinct possibility and while I accept you believe your response, you have not demonstrated how this phenomenon can ONLY occur in laboratory conditions. You could say I'm arguing from incredulity on that, and you'd be partially right, but you would also have to demonstrate why I'm wrong to accept your conclusion, and in that, my friend you failed. Without trying to cause offence, you'll have to do a little better than that, for this hypothesis is both logical and plausible, where the CD hypothesis is not. I do wish to continue with this discussion, however, and do appreciate you taking the time to work out a response. I find this discourse far more stimulating than the usual slanging matches these arguments often descend into.
So on the one hand, the falling bit is being called a curtain wall, and on the other it must have been strong enough such that a single point of the application of force would simply propel the entire mass downward without deforming the facade. Good trick that......
don't waste your time, they have ZERO EVIDENCE. If they had any EVIDENCE, they would go present it to MIT and other recognizable scientific establishments. Guess what? 99% of the scientific community simply laughs at these claims and ignores them so all they can do is present to the average Joe, who can only inform themselves by surfing the internet and can we more easily convinced or confused. If these BOZOS go present all this to the scientific community, they will get humiliated...
First of all, How many have actually even looked at the paper by Prof. Tomasz Wierzbicki on the subject of hijacked airliners striking the WTC tower(s)? Can U say gundecked data? I submit to this forum that papers such as this, only serve to degrade the peer review process in the long-run.
I fail to see how you arrived at that conclusion. I mentioned the possibility of a localised event being responsible for the free-fall observed momentarily on the NW corner, and you suddenly convert it to a global hypothesis? Can you explain your position with a little more clarity? The façade (curtain wall) deformed quite a lot of you watch the following video: [video=youtube_share;xrzeN-wvHD4]http://youtu.be/xrzeN-wvHD4[/video]
Come on, Bob, let's stay focussed on the current conversation. Do we need to introduce derails at this point? That sounds like an evasive manoeuvre, and we still haven't resolved the first point of several.
By what measure do you consider the "deformation" of WTC7 to be significant? the fact is that the action is allegedly being blamed on a single point of failure, and yet, it gives all the indications of having been a simultaneous failure of mass quantities of the structure in order to produce the result.
I don't have a measurement as such that I consider significant and I'm not sure I understand the question. Yes, the NIST report models suggested that column 79 was the culprit. How so? It is obviously progressive, if one takes into account the differential between when the Eastern Penthouse collapses to that of the curtain wall.
Just by calling it "progressive" doesn't alter the fact that in order to achieve the result, that is the free fall acceleration of the North & West walls at the very least, and have the falling mass drop straight down, ALL of the resistance would have to be removed all at the same time. Science 101 material.....
That is based upon the assumption that because free-fall was observed on the NW corner, that it must follow that free-fall applied to the entire western and northern faces. The assumption in the premise seems to the cause of your dilemma.
How is it that you figure the West & North walls did not descend together? what bit leads you to that conclusion?
Well I don't actually, but it was only observed NW corner in the report for the two faces in question cannot be seen in the video footage, therefore it is an assumption that the descent was uniform as it was not recorded.
No, I leave it as an unknown quantity. Bob, let it stand that I only deal with what is known, and I don't engage in speculation other than in exercises of probability.
Exactly how probable is it, that given the video of the North & West walls ( at least that much ) of WTC7 descending in what can only be described as uniform motion and falling as a unit, anybody can question the uniformity of the event.... oh well .... what would you expect it to look like if ONLY the NW corner of the building descended at FREE-FALL acceleration, and all else was doing something different?
Bob, if you surveyed the evidence you know the collapse was hardly 'uniform'. Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated conclusively either way, therefore, there is margin for error in any hypothesis, but probability does not support the use of explosives, especially noiseless, with minimal ejecta and no evidence of the Munroe Effect on extant samples of the steel. I have no expectations, just observations.
This has been a false claim for a long time, there is sufficient evidence to show that explosions did happen, were heard and that bit is completely a non-issue. The other bit about Munroe Effect, I must ask, who investigated & by what means and how is this documented?
