To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would I not attack NIST they covered up what happened on 9/11

You attempt to discredit the NIST investigation repeatedly because you (a layperson) have repeatedly demonstrated that you are under the impression you know more than the investigators and experts who conducted it. You are under the impression you "know more" than the firefighters who were at the scene that day, who were there when the building collapsed. You are under the impression you "know more" than the recognised associations of structural engineers and architects in the US who have backed the investigation (and criticised Gage's AE911 truther group, which you clearly borrow much of your stuff from)

If you were genuine about this, you wouldn't be on a conspiracy theory forum

Instead you are here, refusing to support your own theory (??) and demanding people "explain" things to you that you will refuse to accept

It's difficult to take you seriously when you've done all this before in similar threads on 911, changing your story and your personal "facts" repeatedly

Tipsy McSwagger

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Conspiracies and corruption happen all the time, I rarely see threads about them on this forum

Here it's generally about incredulous denials "no way man went to the moon", "a steel framed building can't fall due to fire", "Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have acted alone", etc

When pressed for an evidence based alternative theory.. the actual conspiracy theory part, that's typically thin or non-existent

It’s usually easily explained. 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew 3 of them into well known landmarks. A nobody who always dreamed of being a somebody assassinated a somebody (JFK). The how and why can be easily explained unless you believe there was a conspiracy.

Dohnjoe

1. Start with the belief that something is a conspiracy
2. Demand that people explain every tiny detail of it
3. Keep going until you find a part you "don't get"
4. It can't be explained so it's a conspiracy!
5. Never back up the conspiracy, only attack the facts

Rinse, repeat

It's literally a hobby for some people

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You attempt to discredit the NIST investigation repeatedly because you (a layperson) have repeatedly demonstrated that you are under the impression you know more than the investigators and experts who conducted it. You are under the impression you "know more" than the firefighters who were at the scene that day, who were there when the building collapsed. You are under the impression you "know more" than the recognised associations of structural engineers and architects in the US who have backed the investigation (and criticised Gage's AE911 truther group, which you clearly borrow much of your stuff from)

If you were genuine about this, you wouldn't be on a conspiracy theory forum

Instead you are here, refusing to support your own theory (??) and demanding people "explain" things to you that you will refuse to accept

It's difficult to take you seriously when you've done all this before in similar threads on 911, changing your story and your personal "facts" repeatedly

You label everyone a conspiracy theorist when they don't believe the official story.

You ignore the architects and engineers who join AE911 are qualified and have good reputations in their field of work. Many of them even teach at universities. The people who criticise are you buddies on Skeptic forums. None of them is qualified. They basically lifelong Skeptics they will always believe the official line about world events.

There is a firefighter truth movement maybe you ask them why they don't believe the 9/11 official story?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You label everyone a conspiracy theorist when they don't believe the official story.

You ignore the architects and engineers who join AE911 are qualified and have good reputations in their field of work. Many of them even teach at universities.

Giant, flaming hypocrite.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't care if she is a Doctor. Expert in what ( space beams blowing up the twin towers?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Has anyone actually taken the time to check those credentials? She claims to be a scientist but she writes like a crazy woman.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Name one scientist who agrees with her from the mainstream? She has to prove her theory.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I would not be surprised if she was a shill brought in to discredit the 9/11 movement.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe You not trusting your own eyes here.

I did not fake the NIST image, this what they claim occurred. If you think i am wrong prove it?

Do you believe the building fell like that on 9/11 or not? Do you think CBS released a fake video of WTC7 collapse? Genuinely curious about this?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

AE911 are qualified

It's an unrecognised internet group of self-professed "experts". When the steel-framed Plasco building fell in Tehran, they described it as an "inside job"

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You label everyone a conspiracy theorist when they don't believe the official story.

You ignore the architects and engineers who join AE911 are qualified and have good reputations in their field of work. Many of them even teach at universities. The people who criticise are you buddies on Skeptic forums. None of them is qualified. They basically lifelong Skeptics they will always believe the official line about world events.

There is a firefighter truth movement maybe you ask them why they don't believe the 9/11 official story?

Yet it's ok for you to do the exact same thing :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST

If you can't understand the NIST or it's findings that's your issue. If you have a question or issue with it, go to the engineering forums? or try to contact some of the many experts that contributed to it

This thread is about credible supporting evidence for alternative theories. It's pretty straightforward really - suspects, witnesses, physical and material evidence, motives, etc

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an unrecognised internet group of self-professed "experts". When the steel-framed Plasco building fell in Tehran, they described it as an "inside job"

It's a movement of Architects and Engineers who believe the official story about WTC7 is wrong.

You think ASCE and NIST are going to come out and support it? You have to look at the calibre of people joining the group. Where are they working, their education, have they expertise, are they members of a professional group of architects and engineers?

Is Dr Hulsey a conspiracy theorist? Have you evidence for this belief? Has it never entered your head the criticisms about the NIST study are genuine?

I saw one paper about Plasco. I never saw anyone from the truth movement talk about it, have you?

storker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an unrecognised internet group of self-professed "experts".

The US Bureau of Labor estimates that there are 2,516,780 architects and engineers in the United States. Wikipedia gives AE911 membership as 3,020, just over 1 out of every 1,000 architects and engineers. Not enough even to call a splinter group.

Granted, some might believe in the conspiracy theory but are insufficiently motivated to join an organisation selling the message. But such a minuscule percentage strongly suggests that the opinion of such professionals in the US has definitely not come down on the side of the conspiracy theory.

Cheerful Spring

storker wrote: »

The US Bureau of Labor estimates that there are 2,516,780 architects and engineers in the United States. Wikipedia gives AE911 membership as 3,020, just over 1 out of every 1,000 architects and engineers. Not enough even to call a splinter group.

Granted, some might believe in the conspiracy theory but are insufficiently motivated to join an organisation selling the message. But such a minuscule percentage strongly suggests that the opinion of such professionals in the US has definitely not come down on the side of the conspiracy theory.

That's just hogwash. You have to talk to every engineer and architect in America and ask them.

Your theory is ridiculous.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you can't understand the NIST or it's findings that's your issue. If you have a question or issue with it, go to the engineering forums? or try to contact some of the many experts that contributed to it

This thread is about credible supporting evidence for alternative theories. It's pretty straightforward really - suspects, witnesses, physical and material evidence, motives, etc

That's the point their findings are nonsensical. Their computer model and the images they released of the collapse are not similar at all. That you don't think its odd is on you. Architects and Engineers have read their study and seen what they released and said no way that's what happened.

The flaws have been already highlighted by Dr Hulsey. Someone with the credentials and knowledge and background has shown what is wrong with the NIST Study.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's just hogwash. You have to talk to every engineer and architect in America and ask them.

Your theory is ridiculous.

Ah, so in fact there's millions of architects who are part of AE9/11. They're just secret members that only you know about...

Clever.

Amprodude

I be hoping that it wasn't an inside job.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, so in fact there's millions of architects who are part of AE9/11. They're just secret members that only you know about...

Clever.

I don't have any expectations 2 million engineers and architects are paying attention to this debate. How many of them actually read the NIST report about WTC7 have you statistic for this?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't have any expectations 2 million engineers and architects are paying attention to this debate. How many of them actually read the NIST report about WTC7 have you statistic for this?

Yup. 1 in 1000 thousand disargee with the NIST.
Prove otherwise.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup. 1 in 1000 thousand disargee with the NIST.
Prove otherwise.

I have to prove something that you are claimiing

2+ million engineers and architects read the WTC7 study?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's the point their findings are nonsensical. Their computer model and the images they released of the collapse are not similar at all. That you don't think its odd is on you. A tiny minority of Architects and Engineers have read their study and seen what they released and said no way that's what happened.

The flaws have been already highlighted by Dr Hulsey. Someone with the credentials and knowledge and background has shown what is wrong with the NIST Study.

Fixed that for you.

Cheerful Spring

This is NIST (WTC7) computer simulation of progressive collapse.




Did is what happened for real on 9/11. There is no illusion or fakery this CBS video of the collapse that day.

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG][/img]via Imgflip GIF Maker

If you guys are unable to see the difference between reality and fakery i don't know what to tell you.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is NIST (WTC7) computer simulation of progressive collapse.




Did is what happened for real on 9/11. There is no illusion or fakery this CBS video of the collapse that day.

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG][/img]via Imgflip GIF Maker

If you guys are unable to see the difference between reality and fakery i don't know what to tell you.

So the report shows the steel structure inside failing, but because of the concrete on the exterior you cannot see this happening so it has to be fake?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So the report shows the steel structure inside failing, but because of the concrete on the exterior you cannot see this happening so it has to be fake?

The computer simulation and the graphic is showing the interior and exterior. Do you think they are not showing the roof and corner walls?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The computer simulation and the graphic is showing the interior and exterior. Do you think they are not showing the roof and corner walls?

The pictures you continue to post are of the steel structure only.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr Just in case you think I am lying

NIST simulation. You even see their logo lower right corner.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

2+ million engineers and architects read the WTC7 study?

Recognised organisations like the American Institute of Architects (representing 90,000+ members), the American Society Of Civil Engineers (150,000+ members), the ICC, the CTBUH have endorsed the NIST report/incorporated findings

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have to prove something that you are claimiing

2+ million engineers and architects read the WTC7 study?

You're claiming that there's more support than that.
Prove it.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Recognised organisations like the American Institute of Architects (representing 90,000+ members), the American Society Of Civil Engineers (150,000+ members), the ICC, the CTBUH have endorsed the NIST report/incorporated findings

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.

The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:

Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)

The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200˚C.
This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550˚C.

The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility Page 5

More inside.
http://911blogger.com/news/2008-10-14/structural-engineering-council-ctbuh-casts-doubt-nists-wtc-7-report

More professional groups were not happy and they were listed on a website I read before, but I have to search that out.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

http://911blogger.com/news/2008-10-14/structural-engineering-council-ctbuh-casts-doubt-nists-wtc-7-report

You are copying straight from conspiracy sites. Read the first post.

This thread is about alternative theories, supported by credible evidence. The point is not to use conspiracy or crank sources

Cheerful Spring

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) believes the collapse happened differently. They believe that fire was the cause still.

As the author highlighted though

So, on the one hand, the CTBUH provides at least three good reasons to dismiss the NIST report as a blatant fraud: (a) phenomenal shear-stud and bolt failure at Column 79, (b) cooling around Column 79 at the supposed time of thermal expansive failure and (c) mystical floor beam buckling. But on the other hand, the CTBUH ignores the blatant evidence of controlled demolition in WTC 7 for no technical reason what-so-ever.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are copying straight from conspiracy sites. Read the first post.

This thread is about alternative theories, supported by credible evidence. The point is not to use conspiracy or crank sources

Maybe you need to take a read of this. So they found flaws but conspiracy theorists are nuts for finding similar flaws?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Tall_Buildings_and_Urban_Habitat