You got me ninja; my eyeballs rolled clean round inside my skull and I am typing this on a braille keyboard...
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
-
-
-
95
What was your first car?
by nicolaou inmine was an old fiat 127, i bought it 1983 and it was at least fifteen years old then!
the seats were vinyl and there were no rear seatbelts so i could send my girlfriend and her sister flying with each bend in the road!
it wouldn't go above 55mph and was rattling like rollercoaster when it finally got there.. the rear window fell out and it finally croaked in puff of blue/black smoke.
-
-
Abaddon
One of these, but it was painted in grey Hammerite and had a baby-seat rivitted to the floor in the back;
... I got it handed on to me by my brother. Wonderful little piece-of-shit, easy to work on although you needed hands like an 8 year-old to get at the distributor easily... got stolen eventually... 80mph flat-out, but so close to the ground it alway felt fast.
Then it was Audi 80 (stolen and written off), Ford Grenada (MkII) 2.6l V6 (bought it off my dad, gave to ex-wife when we split-up, it died of old age). That actually almost had something you could call 'performance'. Then a Ford Grenada (MkIII) 2.0l (another one I bought off my dad, it got scrapped), which was horrid. And now a Skoda Fabia, the only thing I have had from new.
It's a company car so basically I drive it like a bumper car. Got it up to almost 190kph (120mph) a few weeks ago on an autobahn in Germany (on a steep hill, jumping up and down and blowing at the windscreen) which isn't bad for an engine with less power than a SUV's AC unit...
Looking forward to being in SF this weekend and driving an American car. I've got a Chevy Impala, what are they like? From my experience driving American cars (a half dozen and a few thousand miles) you guys seem to like softer springs, soggier steering and bigger engines than we normally have over here but the cars are great for driving in the US.
What's the speed limit in CA nowadays?
-
-
-
Abaddon
berten
You say too soon so you can cling to claims of 'freefall', although you know you can't explain how the explosives got there, you know that firemen reported increasing signs of strutural instability, you can see the collapse was asymetrical. Those three facts alone would make a reasonable person conclude that if video evidence is inconclusive then there is little chance of it being an explosion because of those thre simple facts.
I looked below the video (nice and vauge) and saw a link to a fireman saying it was bound to collapse due to its structural integrity being gone; just another peice of evidenec you;ll ignore because it doesn;t fit your desired conclusion.
Don't get bent out of shape because you have beliefs that don't hold up to examiniation.
I know believing in a conspiracy involving the demoltion of the WTC is meant to make you cool, intellectual and edgey, not a self-made object of fun who shows themselves up by poor research, and the reaction being different to that you expect must be disoriontating. I think that's why you leave 'the playground'; you know you are wrong (you certainly can't even prove hat you believe is possible) but just can't let go and your inability to prove something bugs you, although you'd never admit it.
Why is it so neccesary to believe that Bush or people other than the terrorists were directly responsible for the attacks (i.e. didn't just let it happen/be incompetent) when you can't prove this?
We both probably think Bush is a corrupt clown who engineered an invasion using pretexts such as 911. You have to add to that invisable fairies planting invisible explosives in buildings (how else did it happen, eh?) that we know collapsed due to impact/debris damage and fire and even when you can see a video of a fireman saying 'it's gonna fall down it's lost structural integrity' or words to that effect you ignore it.
I don't get it....
-
153
MY DAD MIGHT DIE DUE TO THE 'NO BLOOD' DOCTRINE
by Mary ini don't have much time to post as i'm headed back to the hospital, but my father collapsed this morning and had to be rushed to the hospital.
in a nutshell: he needs a blood transfusion as his hemoglobin is dropping (bleeding internally), but thanks to this fucking cult, that's not an option...........he'll accept the fractions but those bastards from the blood liaison committee have already shown up to ensure he doesn't cave............... for those of you who still believe, i'm asking you to say a prayer for my dad........and if anyone from crooklyn is reading this: you better hope my father doesn't die due to your fucked up rules, .
-
-
Abaddon
Mary, my thoughts are with you; things sound better for your father. I'm so sorry for your trouble.
Don't jump to medical conclusions you're not qualified to make Mary; and even if the medication turned out to be causative, it was a mistake. Don't be too hard on yourself.
-
-
-
Abaddon
berten
Once again you're busted for inaccurate claims (nice one Leolalia). At what point do you get bored with being wrong and start doing some better research?
ninj
Now, if you want a proper discussion about the build-up to 911 and the arguably suspicious inter-relationships between various people, I think a new thread is a good idea.
First of all this one is so full of refuted conspiracist bullshit you could use it on your roses. Putting what might be valid or interesting claims alongside the rot in this thread won't be doing the new claims any favours.
Second, doing what you are doing now just makes it look like you are changing the subject and flinging every bit of 911 minutiae you can come up with at the screen rather than admit all claims you've made regarding demolition have been shown to be junk.
-
-
-
Abaddon
berten
LOL. Errrr... you don't notice the difference between what we do is that you make a claim, and it is refutted you ignore it's been refutted.
No comment on the misleading way the website you quoted regarding interception of the flights presents a quote from an article which actually supports the official story? Just like the WT does over evolution? No, of course not, you knew you were right at the beginning, what difference does being shown to use misleading claims and inaccurate data make when you have already decided you are right?
You also seem to ignore what you allege happen is, until proven otherwise is physically impossible. It was not possible to plant the explosives required to take those buildings down without people noticing.
As YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim YOU need to provide the evidence YOUR claim is even possible... and as all the numb nuts running conspiracy websites can't prove planting demolition charges was possible without detection, it is not surprising you are in the same boat.
So, me saying your behaviour has cultic aspects (ignoring inconvenient facts, holding things you cannot prove as possible as factual, utlilizing misleading quotations), is reasonable and supported by your behaviour, and you doing the same to me is sour grapes.
Now, let's see; the photo of the cut beams is a good illustration of your credulity and low standards of evidence. You assume that it is evidence of the use of thermite without;
- Knowing when it was taken
- Thinking that as the WTC was not Lego, when it collapsed maybe they needed to cut bits of it up to remove the debris
- Knowing how they managed to plant explosives in the WTC without anyone noticing
Here's a more comprehensive rubbishing of this particular piece of Conspiracist stupidity or deception;
The other link shows you have had the arrogance or laziness not to read material already posted that show;
- the collapse of WTC7 took longer than 6.5 seonds,
- that it was not symetrical,
- that the building showed signs of collapse three hours before it finally went down, which is not really a characteristic of demolition now, eh?
zeroday
Abaddon, I have been following these threads as they appear and have resisted commenting on them. I applaud your effort but I believe even you know it is fruitless to try and reason with these people. There is nothing you or anyone can say to reason with them. It is laughable to believe this could have been pulled off by what hundreds if not thousands of people and NOT ONE PERSON would spill the beans. I just shake my head and laugh at them...
Oh, you're quite right, in fact I predicted their behaviour at the outset. I suppose I am curious about exactly how foolish they are willing to make themselves appear, I also enjoy a good discussion and live in the hope one day a conspiracist will give me a good discussion and presnt an argument that doesn't require me to believe something impossible without evidence, ignore contrary evidence or use fallacies.
Other than personal enjoyment I adopt this approach to maybe sometime accurately inform those on the edge; the people who are not psychologically predisposed towards this rot but who might put credit in ridiculous claims - be they about the Flood, Evolution or 911 because they have busy lives and might not have the time to research the subject independently. The volume of noise generated by 911ers and ID-ots is such it can mislead people into thinking they have an argument that is credible.
I also find the psychology of belief very interesting and seeing its pathology at work in these threads is instructive.
-
-
-
Abaddon
Gill
1/ What you say has nothing to do with the bunch of bullshit paraded by us by the conspiracists in this thread. Start another thread about communication privacy by all means.
2/ Retaining details of number dialled, time and length of call and (if a mobile) what cell the call is made in has been extended to one year. There have been a mismash of laws applying previously and this is not the big change one can make it out to be on a slow news Monday if your are a Journo with space to fill.
You say "what you were... saying what etc!"
That's simply not true; the calls are LOGGED, not RECORDED.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=68143&in_page_id=34
-
29
Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?
by Science101 ini wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.
looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .
one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.
-
-
Abaddon
Science101
I have to say that your sermon was excellent! I'm not sure if it helped give anyone something to believe in, but I liked it! Thanks for writng the piece.
It was fun to write; the reason it didn't give anyone anything to believe in was *chortle* me using my creative force. Making someone believe in something was not my *wink*goal.
It would be predictable if we knew how to study it in that level of detail. Or in other words, just because someone does not know where a road is going, does not mean that it's impossible for someone else to predict where it ends.
Outside of controlled environments and populations it would seem the prediction of evolution would be subject to the same limitations as predicting weather. Because of the high number of variables anything beyond short range is inaccurate. And just because the weatherman says it'll rain Tuesday doesn't mean it is the weather's goal to rain Tuesday.
I'm not sure if I can agree. The colorful tail of the peacock does exist in the mind of the females. They have a goal when selecting a mate that in a sense makes their evolution predictable.
Their goal is not causing evolution to make large tails. They do not have that in mind. They don't have anything in mind. They have instincts which make them more likely to submit to the mating displays of the most magnificently endowed male (and human's ain't so different, LOL); that is as far as it goes.
Our schools are not doing a very good job of teaching evolution. Are even schools, home schools, and universities, that only teach Creationism.
In the USA this is a major issue. I live in the Netherlands, although I am English. Creationism does not have 1/10th of the support it has in the USA, and any University that taught Creationism would be denied accreditation, any school would have to be private, and the educational standards you must have yourself in order to home school are higher; it's not viewed as a parents right to educate their child as they wish but a child's right to be educated decently.
The term "present continuous" is not even explained in any I know of.
It's English grammar; "I am writing to you" is a use of the present continuous.
Yes, everyone knows what creates means. And simply google "moleculay self-assembly" and the related links and you'll find that it is very real. No tooth fairy required.
You are treating 'creative force' and 'molecular self-assembly' as synonymous. They are not. Just ignoring my point that 'creative force' carries implications 'molecular self-assembly' does not, and that a new term isn't needed doesn't work.
Likewise, capitalising GENESIS in abiogenesis doesn't make the GENESIS bit suddenly refer to the Bible; the two instances (following convention for coining scientific terms and using Greek or Latin and using a modern English word replete with religious connotations when a neutral term already exists) are not comparable.
And to say subject A should become meaningful to belief structure B just because there is a debate about subject A and belief B is putting the horse before the cart. If the believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn start a debate about how their beliefs intersect with scientific understanding, should science become meaningful to believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
If modern Christianity requires science to become meaningful to it, what of Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Scientology, Mormonism, etc? Science is meaningful in the real world. It doesn;t have to be meaningful in a church. Church goers just have to learn science is a good guide for how the physical world works even if the bronze-age goatherd (or 19th Century American con artist, or 20th Century Science-fiction writer) of their choice contradicts it.
The aim of my 'sermon' was to show acceptance of modern scientific fact is possible even if the source text of your religion is incompatible with modern science as regards human origins. To show modern scientific fact and ancient religious traditions can co-exist is far more important for me than trying to dumb down science so it's accepted by people who had poor educations.
-
-
-
Abaddon
ninj
It's quite charming in its own way; there you go, insisting something you haven't been able to prove is possible happened.
Don't take it personally; no one in the 911 conspiracy league has been able to prove it was possible to plant demolition charges without anyone noticing. They've not even really tried; see the pattern of behaviour? Confronted with the fact the alternative explanation they offer is impossible they carry on insisting the official story is rubbish and the towers were demolished.
Just like Flood believers ignore the ark was impossible and carry on with their beliefs regardless.
I cut and paste as you seem unwilling or incapable of examining evidence that refutes conspiracist claims yourself. At least if I c&p you can't pretend you haven't seen it and any excuse for not responding to the refutation of conspiracist nonsense is gone.
The link for the data you want is already in the post; good to see you're doing thorough research, LOL, here's the spoon-feed, open wide, it's an aeroplane!!!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
I see none of the people supporting the conspiracist theories seem to have bothered looking at a reference Leolalia provided earlier
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
It basically says;
1/ The collapse of WTC1 & 2 did not look like controlled demolition. These start with an explosion at the base; WTC1 & 2 started at impact point.
2/ Explosive charges would either have to already be in place and be put in place without anyone noticing (impossible, large amount of the outer-perimeter interior walls would need to be removed let alone all the other visible disruption wiring a building for demolition would cause) and be unaffected by impact of explosion (impossible) or put in place in 55 minutes whilst the building was on fire (impossible).
3/ No building of the size of WTC 1,2 & 7 has ever been demolished using controlled explosive demolition
4/ Claims the buildings fell largely in their own footprints are wrong.
5/ So called 'squibs' are pneumatic effects of the collapse
6/ Eyewitness reports of explosions are probably mistaken given the lack of evidence for the use of explosives and the lack of seismograph evidence for explosions - and please don't make yourself look silly by using the graph beloved of conspiracists that seems to show something but when viewed in greater detail allows better resolution of the various stages of collapse and conclusively shows no signs of demolition explosions.
7/ No evidence has been found of thermite; Jones samples lack any proper trail of evidence that would preclude contamination and no signs of Hermite use (it's pretty characteristic) were noted in any beams in the eight months of removing debris.
8/ Steel from the WTC site was treated no differently from other scrap steel coming out of a pile of rubble, except that the WTC steel had a lot more people examining it.
9/ WTC7 collapsed whilst several demolition teams were nearby;
"We were all standing around helpless... we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. ... but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to he building and how hot the ire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited an a little later it went."
Of course, conspiracists all know that they, ignorant of demolition as they are, must know better sat in front of a computer screen after the event than demolition workers a few hundred yards away on the day... or that these demolition workers are liars and part of the conspiracy. Self-deluding arrogance or what?
10/ 'Pull it' does not mean 'controlled explosion' to someone in the demolition industry
11/ WTC7 sustained far severer damage than is made out by consopiracists and burnt unchecked for hours.
12/ Claims that no steel-framed buildings ever collapsed before due to fire are false and irrelevant; besides, no vessel like Titanic had ever sunk before until one did, no Space Shuttle was ever lost until one was; the argument 'no steel framed building collapsed due to fire before therefore it must have been explosives is untrue and illogical.
But of course, all the information in a report by demolition experts that indicate explosive demolition to be a fantasy is the work of stooges, and all the eye witness testimony from firefighters that prove WTC7 was showing all the signs of collapsing due to structural damage from being hit by rubble and from uncontrolled fires hours before it finally collapsed is just ignored by conspiracists.
After all, if a firefighter says something that means your pet theory is impossible, he must be lying and part of a cover-up that killed hundreds of his colleauges.
I'd love to see some of these conspiracists take their self-obsessed (well, you'd have to be to unreasonably ignore facts in favour of your own opinion) excreta into a New York firestation, find Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden and Fire Chief Daniel Nigro and tell them they were liars and parts of the conspiracy... because free of all the sanctimonious 'ooo, we're making the 'truth' know', that is what the conspiracists do. Accuse thousands of men and women of being liars, without one piece of solid evidence to support their claims.
berten
The quote from NORAD by AP says 'scrambled', not 'intercepted'. The same news item confirms the events of the day and shows changes were made to procedures after 911.
Funny how a conspiracist website can take 'scrambled' to mean 'intercept' when it suits them, but also fail to note in their article the source of their quote actually supports what they are arguing against.
How like the Borg - who use clever quotes from die-hard evolutionists to make it look like evolution is in doubt in the scientific community.
To be honest, I wouldn't wipe my arse with the website you quoted it is so biased; it starts with a fallacy and goes downhill from there. It also supports 'a missile hit the Pentagon' theory another classic of Conspiracist bullshit where the eye-witness testimony of the majority, those people who saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon (dozens on the Interstate it flew over just before impact alone) and concentrates on those few that support their preconception.
And the testimony of someone like Scott Forbes, which Leolalia dismantles nicely, is taken as gospel truth...
And still we wait for the explanation of how explosives were planted without anyone knowing about it.
And it won't be coming any time soon because it is impossible.
-
-
-
Abaddon
Okay...
berten
You prefer to ignore this important fact,and you *dare* to talk about "Cognitive Dissonance"?
I don't ignore it, I find the fact you don't know it is untrue significant as it reveals the extent of your research;
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3
And, no, there was nothing unusual about the number of jets available.
Now, my comment about cognitive dissonance was applied to those who believe the WTC was demolished despite the explosives they say demolished it being impossible to put in place without it being discovered beforehand. Unless someone can show it is possible to have planted explosives to demolish the WTC without anyone noticing, the comment is a fair one and holds to the definition of cognitive dissonance. You don't have to like it, but there you have it.
Rather than getting sniffy you could prove it is possible to plant x amount of explosives in y different positions connected by z metres of wire with a number of men working b hours and the process being unnoticed by the occupants of the building because of Professor Zog's invisibility ray, or whatever, Your hypothesis, you prove it.
If you want respect for your opinions have opinions that deserve respect.
I see you make no comment about the URL I posted; does this mean you find the refutations are sound? Or are they easily dismissed?
ninja
Until you actually answer my challenge and prove your hypothesis is physically possible, I'll not waste my time responding to all the questions you ask to evade giving answers you cannot provide. Isn't cut and paste a wonderful thing?
So, you are awarded a fail in your attempt to prove demolition charges could be laid in WTC1, 2 or 7. You show that maybe there was a power outage in the South Tower from the 48th floor up for approximately 30 hours.
1/2 of one out of three buildings... for thirty hours...
Do you know how long it takes to prepare a building for demolition when it's EMPTY?
And what about the other 2 1/2 buildings??
Is the maths required to figure out the explosives, wiring and set-up time a little too much for the websites you patronise for this bunk ninja?
Seems so.
For the fun of it;
that no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire before 9/11 ...^ FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4.
And the rest of the report? It concludes;
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]
You almost make it sound like that report finds the collapse suspicious using that quote as you do ninja.
To prove my point about you being able to find refutation of conspiracist nonsense if you bother looking for it, here's the wiki with the footnotes replaced by URL's and added bold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc7
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center "with the force of a volcanic eruption. [http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html]
The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[ http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P4InvestigationofActiveFireProtection.pdf][http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-4.pdf ]
After the north tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6790722824543352916&hl=en][http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf]
During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf]
At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html]
During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html]
Around 5:01 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt][http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.
In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. Structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse.[http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf]
In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, $16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center.[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf]
NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage.
The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html][http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[ http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf ] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf]
In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf][http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109111651-1733]
A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm ][http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html]
NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 World Trade Center by the end of 2007.[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html] The NIST is utilizing ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to initiating events.[http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf] The investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 World Trade Center were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005, to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm] Regarding the investigation of 7 World Trade Center, Dr S. Shyam Sunder stated in a New York magazine interview in March 2006, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he then added, "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."[http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index6.html] In June 2007, he explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html]
Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index5.html] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse," NIST said: "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm]
Funny, they're doing the maths to find out how big a bang would be needed to demolish it. Maybe they can then demolish silly conspiracy theories by showing setting up such an explosion would be impossible to conceal.
But isn't it remarkable in addition to being invisible, massless, and planted by invisible fairies the explosives used to demolish WTC7 are so special they start wall bulging at 2pm, 3 hours 20 minutes before they go off in a slow asymmetrical explosion? Clever fairies!!
Oh boy, there's no profit in being a prophet!
I predict lovers of conspiracy hypotheses will post tired old hackneyed conspiracy claims they could have found comprehensive refutations if they had bothered. When they are directed to the refutation of such old hackneyed conspiracy claims they will ignore them and carry on believing what they believed in beforehand.
