Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 18, 2024, 05:52:41 PM »
Here is an interview with Dr. Leroy Hulsey, professor emeritus at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. His report directly conflicts with the NIST Report on WTC 7 (which never released the data sets utilized to model their version of how the building collapsed).

To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2024, 09:18:31 PM »
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."
       
« Last Edit: February 18, 2024, 09:44:21 PM by mahogany »

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #2 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. 

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 03:59:57 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #4 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. 
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 04:07:42 AM by mahogany »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #5 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.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2024, 04:30:41 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #6 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #7 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.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 05:04:34 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #8 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.     
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 05:15:59 AM by mahogany »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #9 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.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #10 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?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 06:29:54 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2024, 05:57:26 AM »



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


^This is a lie.

NIST did not release any of the data inputs to validate their computer modeling of the collapse. And their model of the collapse absolutely does not match what was witnessed.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 07:37:21 AM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2024, 06:20:22 AM »
Were the pyrotechnic explosions used to bring down WTC 7 the silent kind, like this one:

« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 06:22:47 AM by mahogany »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2024, 06:42:02 AM »
There was evidence of explosions associated with Building 7. See this 10 minute video -



Here is an article:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosions

Quote
Explosions | World Trade Center Building 7

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claims in its WTC 7 FAQs that “no blast sounds were heard on audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.” 1 However, both audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions during the destruction of WTC 7 contradict NIST’s claim.

Although there are not nearly as many eyewitness accounts of explosions in WTC 7 as in WTC 1 and WTC 2, there are a handful of accounts that strongly suggest explosions occurred immediately before and during WTC 7’s destruction. These include:

Craig Bartmer, former NYPD officer: “All of a sudden...I looked up, and... [t]he thing started peeling in on itself.... I started running...and the whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it.” 2

First-year NYU medical student identified as Darryl: “We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder.... Turned around — we were shocked.... It looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.... [A]bout a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.” 3

Kevin McPadden, unaffiliated, volunteer first responder: “And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound...BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.” 4

MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield hears a loud sound from several blocks north of WTC 7 and says, “Oh my god.... This is it.”

These eyewitness accounts are corroborated by MSNBC video footage of reporter Ashleigh Banfield several blocks north of WTC 7. In the video, she hears a loud sound, turns her attention to WTC 7, and says, “Oh my god.... This is it.” 5 About seven seconds after she hears the loud sound, WTC 7 collapses. As David Chandler observes in the video WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions:

“There were two blasts, followed by seven more regularly spaced all in two and a half seconds. Craig Bartmer’s testimony may come to mind: ‘The whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.”’....

“When we hear the sharp, regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter say, “This is it,” the building has not yet started to fall.... The blasts we heard occurred seconds before the building started to fall.”

In addition to eyewitness accounts of explosions at the time of WTC 7’s destruction, there were eye-witness accounts from two men — Michael Hess (Corporation Counsel for the City of New York) and Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services at the New York City Housing Authority) — who reported experiencing an explosion and smoke in a stairway in the northeast part of WTC 7 prior to the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:28 AM.6

It has been claimed that what Hess and Jennings experienced was the result of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC 7. However, this claim is not plausible, as Hess and Jennings were in a stairway at the opposite end of WTC 7 (northeast) from where debris impacted the building (southwest), and their account indicates that the explosion and smoke they witnessed occurred before the collapse of WTC 1.7

Endnotes
[1] NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, Question #13.

[2] https://youtu.be/xpoAmEGdsn4

[3] http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma

[4] https://youtu.be/b4z-Wrp1pY8

[5] https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg?t=2m6s

[6] Hess: https://youtu.be/6e3K9jcPdXc; Jennings: https://youtu.be/gwJi0R2jza4

[7] Griffin, David Ray: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009), pp. 84-111.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 06:44:13 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2024, 07:26:55 AM »
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2024, 06:59:15 PM »
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.


what specifically is the lie?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2024, 07:25:17 PM »
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.


what specifically is the lie?
"Each carrying tens of thousands of jet full (sic)"

Once you admit this one, then you can deal with the lie of the "valid" NIST computer modeling.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 07:27:27 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2024, 07:57:12 PM »
Both 767s were destined for LAX.  According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour.  Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact.  "Tens of thousands" in my book. 

Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms.  Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value. 

Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie? 

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2024, 08:07:36 PM »
Both 767s were destined for LAX.  According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour.  Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact.  "Tens of thousands" in my book. 

Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms.  Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value. 

Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."
« Last Edit: February 19, 2024, 08:11:43 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2024, 08:34:54 PM »
Both 767s were destined for LAX.  According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour.  Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact.  "Tens of thousands" in my book. 

Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms.  Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value. 

Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."


In my first post I forgot to add units of weight (pounds), as in tens of thousands of pounds of kerosene jet fuel. My bad.

I used to be a private pilot and so this was an honest miss but meant to add pounds.

The takeaway is still that both commercial airliners carried tens of thousands of pounds of fuel which is not a lie.