Recent Posts

71
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by Action80 on February 19, 2024, 05:52:25 AM »
Titled ".... WTC BUILIDING 7 ..." (sic). 

Obviously a critique with this level of peer-review deserves our full attention.
Jimmy Dore is not performing a peer-review, as he is not a peer of Dr. Hulsey.

He was interviewing Dr. Hulsey, who had already released his peer-reviewed report on the collapse of WTC-7.

Could you perhaps disguise your disingenuous characterization a little bit better next time?
72
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 05:16:13 AM »
Yes, you are calling it a coincidence based on "random" and "uncertain" events that the observation matches the model of the controlled demolition in the OP that the structural engineering professor presents on the Jimmy Dore Show.

Here is another explanation: It is not a coincidence.
73
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by mahogany on February 19, 2024, 05:06:24 AM »
This paraphrased explanation of "it's random and uncertain how it will look as it falls, and it's just a coincidence that it's falling like a controlled demolition -- random uncertain effect just made it look that way!" isn't really doing you any favors.


Creating a paraphrase that isn't consistent to what was actually quoted in the report and then putting quotes around it (as an attempt to try and pass it off as being accurate) isn't really doing you any favors.

Tom's inaccurate paraphrase with his own quotes: "it's random and uncertain how it will look as it falls"
Actual report quote: "due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris"

Tom's inaccurate paraphrase with his own quotes: "and it's just a coincidence that it's falling like a controlled demolition" 
Actual report quote: "there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence"


If you do believe in a demolition conspiracy in WTC 7, one would think that large pyrotechnic explosions and mini-blasts would have been recorded, observed, and heard.     
74
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 04:53:39 AM »
This paraphrased explanation of "it's random and uncertain how it will look as it falls, and it's just a coincidence that it's falling like a controlled demolition -- random uncertain effect just made it look that way!" isn't really doing you any favors.

In the video in the OP the structural engineer has a model of how the building look would in a controlled demolition, and it closer matches the observed exterior of the event.
75
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by mahogany on February 19, 2024, 04:33:55 AM »

NIST's simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture and match various critical observations derived from the digital video recording

NIST validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred

Once NIST's simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris.
76
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 04:13:17 AM »
If the simulation is only explaining the global collapse and the events "after the initiation of the global collapse" differ from observation, then this is not a simulation which accurately explains events. Other NIST answers champion the simulation as "These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred." This is clearly wrong if their simulation of the exterior differs from observation.

The exterior structure of the building becomes severely deformed as it falls in the NIST model.

This is the deformity we are talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQtSprGafU



NIST is correct here in their simulation. There should be severe deformity. It should not come down like a controlled demolition.

It seems like NIST just had a goal of simulating a global collapse caused by fire, and that's as far as they got in explaining the events. They simulated one thing and couldn't go further. They could not simulate what we saw, which is a disproof of their explanation.
77
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by mahogany on February 19, 2024, 04:00:57 AM »
Jimmy Dore and his show are known to spew or carry conspiracy theories about various topics. Caution should be given to falling down the proverbial conspiracy theory rabbit hole.

The collapse of the 9/11 buildings (also falling directly onto their own footprint) was caused by nothing more than a group of terrorists that flew two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full) through two buildings that instantly severed and compromised the buildings structures causing them to collapse when the structural integrity was compromised further by burning jet fuel. The collapse of the buildings and the buildings fires further compromised adjacent structures such as WTC 7. It was a domino effect.       

See attached. 
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

"Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
     

Also from NIST:

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation

Quote
25. The simulation of the collapse modeling of WTC 7 does not match the video footage of the collapse. In particular, the large inward deformations of the upper exterior walls after the beginning of global collapse are not visible in the video footage. Can NIST explain the difference between the results of its computer model of the collapse and the available video evidence?

NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. In its comparison of the two analyses (see NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.5), NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events, and it is this simulation that is considered here.

NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the "kink" in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.

Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, "Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris." The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.

See bolded. In other words the NIST couldn't simulate an event where the exterior falls together. It says that events "after the initiation of the global collapse" the simulation differs.

Also, this is funny:

Quote
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

...

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

...


Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

...

What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7.

...

NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?

In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.

Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private-sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.


Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom.

- NIST conducted two global collapse analyses. NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events
- The simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture and match various critical observations derived from the digital video recording
- NIST validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred
- Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed: "Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris. Simulation models aren't always 100% accurate and perfect and often contain some level of error.

Lastly, if you are of a conspiratorial mindset where you believe government agencies (such as NASA) lie a lot to cover things up, than one would think that the NIST (which is a Federal Agency within the Commerce Department) would have corrected or covered up any errors in their simulation. I guess on the flip side if NIST's simulation matched, you would then call into question why their simulation matched so well which would then be a simulation model conspiracy. 
78
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 02:29:58 AM »
Jimmy Dore and his show are known to spew or carry conspiracy theories about various topics. Caution should be given to falling down the proverbial conspiracy theory rabbit hole.

The collapse of the 9/11 buildings (also falling directly onto their own footprint) was caused by nothing more than a group of terrorists that flew two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full) through two buildings that instantly severed and compromised the buildings structures causing them to collapse when the structural integrity was compromised further by burning jet fuel. The collapse of the buildings and the buildings fires further compromised adjacent structures such as WTC 7. It was a domino effect.       

See attached. 
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

"Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."
     

Also from NIST:

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation

Quote
25. The simulation of the collapse modeling of WTC 7 does not match the video footage of the collapse. In particular, the large inward deformations of the upper exterior walls after the beginning of global collapse are not visible in the video footage. Can NIST explain the difference between the results of its computer model of the collapse and the available video evidence?

NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. In its comparison of the two analyses (see NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.5), NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events, and it is this simulation that is considered here.

NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the "kink" in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.

Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, "Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris." The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.

See bolded. In other words the NIST couldn't simulate an event where the exterior falls together. It says that events "after the initiation of the global collapse" the simulation differs.

They then give a series of excuses for why they can't simulate it, oddly while their other answers champion their simulation as a general proof.

Also, this is funny:

Quote
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

...

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

...


Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

...

What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7.

...

NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?

In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.

Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private-sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

The NIST investigation included no actual physical evidence and their analysis is based on some theories.

And in regards to their theories, the answer here claims that their computer models "produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred" despite a previous answer which says that their model of the exterior behavior does not match observation.
79
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on February 18, 2024, 10:06:03 PM »
"When they came for the Estonians, I was not Estonian, so I did nothing". 

And so on, and so forth. 
80
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on February 18, 2024, 09:42:34 PM »
Titled ".... WTC BUILIDING 7 ..." (sic). 

Obviously a critique with this level of peer-review deserves our full attention.