- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
– “you’ve nailed the professional victim routine!”
Indeed. You didn’t just post a smear, and I’m only imagining that I was the target.
Congratulations Clark, you win. You’ve made it impossible to discuss the topic of this thread. You respond to EVERY post with attention-seeking irrelevant drivel. You’ve driven off everyone but Dave. I’ll leave you two to it.
As explained Clark is compelled to dispute controlled demolition and skunk the thread as otherwise he feels personally culpable for the crime as a real or honouree member of the tribe. I find it an entertaining study in itself grappling with this ancestral madness which confirms a prejudice.
I can understand why some find his posts at best tiresome sophistry that ruin a thread about 9/11, but you only need to view the collapse without blinkers to know it could only happen with the aid of explosives. So its a settled matter that many people avert their eyes from because they fear what they see.
In truth there is no need to debate Clark, just make comments and attach links to 9/11 sites (Craig’s other closed 9/11 thread is a wealth of information) and authors and let people do their own research. That said Clark is a clever clogs and does raise fair points on other subjects.
– “Lie STILL while the faithful kick you, scum. Answering back will NOT be tolerated from untermensch!”
Is it any wonder that Israel feels the need for nuclear weapons?
The boil has burst!
– “tribe”, “ancestral madness”
You’re talking about Jews, aren’t you Dave? “Only a Jew would deny demolition” right?
Found it:
Node, The 9/11 Post comment page 100,
Node, December 4, 2016 at 13:12:– KOWN : “Node, do you know what changes to building regulations they have introduced, in the wake of Building 7” ….
– Not aware of any changes in building laws, but they’ve introduced substantial changes to Newton’s laws in response to the collapse.
So, WTC7 not the Twin Towers, but it was indeed a quip, an aside.
I was mystified by Dave’s “find Jesus!” remark at the time, but further down the thread I understood that he meant that I should overcome the Jewishness he sees in me.
I have read about half way through the UAF draft so far. Is anyone else here reading it?
Now that the context is clearer, it seems that Dave has invoked the anti-Semitic trope of “Jews are professional victims”, a prejudice shared by Holocaust deniers, and as I mentioned earlier, Dave has recommended a book by Holocaust denier Victor Thorn.
Here is an earlier example of me being “suspected” of being Jewish.
It was decades before I recognised the anti-Semitism pervading the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement”, but my personal experience eventually made it undeniable.
” Kempe recognised this and scuttled off. ”
Don’t flatter yourself.
This thread is going over the same old ground, it’s got boring.
I’m the UAF report looks impressive, I’ve seen lots of reports that LOOK impressive but any modelling is only as good as the basic assumptions that form it’s foundation and the UAF’s work was based on a foregone conclusion. This is also a man who once described steel as a “very fire resistant material”! Presumably the numerous building codes around the world that require extensive fire-proofing on steel framed buildings are in error.
Odd that.
<i>This thread is going over the same old ground, it’s got boring.</i>
No, the UAF report has broken new ground. It demonstrates with mathematics and engineering that WTC7 couldn’t have collapsed due to fire as claimed by NIST. As a defender of NIST, the ball is in your court now, Kempe. Prove him wrong. That’s what’s new.
Until now, the Truth Movement has attacked the official narrative with a thousand anomalies and the establishment has responded by attacking the credibility of it’s accusers. Until now, that’s proved enough – global power structures against assorted individuals and small groups. But now the Truthers have sent Mathematicians and Engineers into the battle and science itself defines the rules of engagement. The establishment will have to come up with something better than shouting names at the enemy. You can only fight science with science, so come ahead if you think you’re hard enough.
Now let’s examine your contribution. You’ve read enough of the UAF report to believe it’s impressive. So do you question the science? No, you attack the credibility of its author. ReallY? Looks like I over estimated you when I said you’d seen the writing on the wall.
And anyway, it was a pretty lame attach on Hulsey. Steel IS a very fire resistant material. He didn’t say it was impervious.
Let me ask you a question. If it is proved that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition, will you continue to claim that planes brought down WTC1 & WTC2?
Kempe, my “emergency demolition of WTC7” suggestion isn’t “the same old ground”, is it? I did ask earlier.
Node: “If it is proved that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition, will you continue to claim that
planesstructural failure at the damaged zones brought down WTC1 & WTC2?”I would; absolutely.
Before ruling out gravity-driven collapse, you should work out what gravity-driven collapse would look like. That’s what Truthers never bother to do, simply declaring it impossible, and what I did bother to do.
And Kempe, Node is right that science isn’t a matter of authority – though Node transgressed that himself further up the thread, with his “five fire commissioners” stuff.
A valid objection to the UAF report is that they have very limited knowledge of the initial conditions.
Oh and Node, it’s probably pointless coming from me, but someone ought to tell you. Your first three paragraphs really are the most self-indulgent twaddle. The “Truth Movement” has buried valid objections under its own small mountain of bullshit, which the “establishment” has mostly ignored or, if anything, used as click-bait like Google / YouTube has.
Ordinary people have been taking the piss because what passes for reasoning in the “Truth Movement” is such shite, but you lot have decided that anyone disagreeing with any of you must be either stupid or evil, either sheeple or agents. So you’ve attributed the supposed agents’ contributions to the “establishment”.
Consider. A man crossing a road is seen to be struck by a car in a hit-and-run incident. He is knocked against a wall, cracks his ribs and dies of internal bleeding. But no! This is just the “official story”! In fact, he had been in hospital shortly before, where evil doctors (who many say were Jewish) had rigged his ribs with explosives, and an accomplice to the driver of the car had detonated them by remote control to make it look like a simple hit-and-run crime! It’s not even possible for the car impact to have hurt him, because of Newton’s third law! Yeah, if I were a doctor I’d be terrified of being found out; wouldn’t you?
Right, I’ve got to the interesting bit,
Chapter 4.0 SIMULATING THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
4.1 Key Features of the Collapse:
– This section omits the initial half second of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity, as measured by Chandler.
4.1.1 Discussion of NIST’s Progressive Collapse Simulation:
– “Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed”
False. Window breakage seems to appear on some videos; Truthers, predictably, claim this to be “squibs”.
Report page 108, PDF page 120 shows UAF simulation against Chandler’s video measurements. The graph is a bit crowded, but from t=~0.3 to t=~0.8 you can see uniform velocity of about 1 metre per second. No acceleration, uniform velocity. Can anyone please suggest ways that this might be consistent with collapse initiation by explosives?
– – – – – – –In all, I am unimpressed with this report. 90% of it consists of claims of what couldn’t have happened. There are an infinite number of ways anything can break, yet only a handful of failure scenarios were modelled. It confuses free-fall with g, and shouldn’t be claiming any free-fall for the shell of the building because the report itself requires that the shell remain connected to the core.
I think that the report’s emphasis upon simulation is premature. It would have been more useful to concentrate upon data gathering and measurement, establishing limits of accuracy of initial conditions, and then crowd-source multiple simulation scenarios in the manner of Seti At Home or Folding At Home.
On the plus side it does show what a pig’s ear of a building WTC7 was. It confirms that column loads were wildly uneven, with column 79 carrying way more than most others, nearly four times the load of column 65. Further, this report establishes that global collapse of the building would have ensued from the failure of just six core columns.
– – – – – – – –To the Truthers, I ask this; for what reason would the conspiracy have pre-rigged this building for nearly symmetrical bottom-up collapse?
It takes weeks if not months to properly rig a building of that size to implode. It is not feasible to consider that the building was somehow rigged for a perfect demolition in the few hours after the Twins collapsed while a massive rescue operation was underway at the pile. Fire fighters would not have had time to rig Building 7 that day. No chance. They were much too busy.
But let’s say for a second that they did. How come they used state-of-the-art, military-grade-only at the time Nano-composites of Thermite? Why would they have had access to such a rare & remarkable compound & why would they use it instead of much more reliable, available & understood mechanisms?
The evidence that Nano-Thermite was used in both the demolition of Building 7 AND the twin towers makes it extremely unlikely that building 7 was rigged that morning. It is apparent that someone spent months if not years preparing those three towers for the 9/11 plane impacts.
It’s tough on the cognition, but them’s the facts.
Then of course, there’s the five dancing Isreali’s arrested in New Jersey after a witness reported a van full of ARABS celebrating with the burning towers & falling office workers as the backdrop to their photo’s & video. There is no way to shoe-horn five Israeli’s dressed as Arabs into the Al-Qaeda-dunnit thesis. If Arabs were happy enough to die flying planes into buildings it strikes me as extremely unlikely that they would have balked at celebrating the attacks in public.
In other words, if Israeli’s had to dress up as ARABS to celebrate 9/11 in public to implicate Arabs in the attacks, why do we believe Arabs were on those planes? Perhaps the suicide pilots were Israeli’s, not Arabs.
I’m going off my “emergency demolition” scenario because of the 0.5 seconds of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity as measured by Chandler, which is inconsistent with collapse initiation by explosives, see here, but almost every other claim you make is questionable at best, so here goes…
– “It takes weeks if not months to properly rig a building of that size to implode.”
Teams of military engineers routinely rig demolitions in hours.
– “It is not feasible to consider that the building was somehow rigged for a perfect demolition in the few hours”
It wasn’t perfect; WTC7’s collapse wrote off one other building and did millions of dollars of damage to another.
– “Fire fighters would not have had time to rig Building 7 that day”
But there is a major naval base just across the water, so a SEAL team perhaps? They do demolitions.
– “How come they used state-of-the-art, military-grade-only at the time Nano-composites of Thermite?”
I know of no evidence of nano thermite. I thought the Harrit paper alleges only ordinary thermite, which is easy to make from common materials. So far as I know, nanothermite was proposed only because normal thermite reacts too slowly for a sequenced, theatrical demolition of the Twin Towers; it’s impossible to time accurately enough.
– “It’s tough on the cognition…”
Please, don’t talk down to people this way; I’m entirely capable of imagining and considering such scenarios. I reject demolition theory not because it is too scary to consider, but because it doesn’t fit the facts.
– “There is no way to shoe-horn five Israeli’s dressed as Arabs…”
This is the first I’ve heard that the “dancing Israelis” were dressed as Arabs; please substantiate.
– “…into the Al-Qaeda-dunnit thesis”
Perhaps you are unaware of the decades-long de facto alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Israeli infiltration and exploitation of Islamist groups. But in any case, “al Qaeda” is merely a convenient label, applied by propagandists when the Wahhabist extremists do something embarrassing to the Neocon alliance. When such extremists do something convenient for Neocon objectives, the propagandists call them “threatened civilians”, “freedom fighters” or “moderate rebels”.
– “why do we believe Arabs were on those planes? Perhaps the suicide pilots were Israeli’s, not Arabs”
1) The Israeli ideology does not inspire suicide attacks, whereas Wahhabist indoctrination is well known to; indeed, this is what makes it so valuable for projection of Saudi power worldwide, and hence to the Neocon alliance.
2) Even if 9/11 was a purely Israeli operation as you seem to be saying, would it not make more sense for Israel to exploit Wahhabist-inspired suicide hijackers?
3) Many thousands of US citizens were involved in the various investigations. It might be possible to persuade or coerce a few people into endorsing a completely false finding, but not that many; some would speak out, knowing that many others would confirm the truth of what they were saying.
4) Many agents spoke out after 9/11 about how their investigations would have revealed the hijackers, had not higher authorities ordered them to stop.
I often notice that the strong polarisation of some disputes is fully explained by Bayes Theorem (link to nice explanation below). Clark assigns zero to the prior probability that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition (CD), and hence his Bayesian estimate of the probability of CD (trivially) works out at zero, no matter how much posterior evidence for it he includes.
Assigning zero as a prior probability of CD is the same as saying ‘the US government of that time would never do such a thing as injure its own people in order to foment a casus belli’. That is akin to a religious declaration of faith, rather than any kind of science. A probability close to 1 would be wrong, but at least more consistent with experience. That is why SM says it is ‘tough on the cognition’ if you think it’s zero. It’s not ‘talking down’ – it’s maths.
It’s also why Clark asserts that WTC7 was mined for CD in a few hours on the day, because if it took longer than that, then the perpetrators could not have been those accused. And if they were innocent of the WTC7 collapse, by what ingenious coincidence could they remain guilty for the twin towers? Clark has selected a new impossible thing to replace the impossible thing he can no longer believe.
Understand Bayes Theorem (prior/likelihood/posterior/evidence)
Vronsky, thanks for your cod-psychological hatchet job; I think I’ve addressed all those points elsewhere on this thread, so I suggest you read my other comments more carefully.
Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how WTC7’s initial 0.5 seconds of descent at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives? Physics is my ‘thing’, you see.
Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how WTC7’s initial 0.5 seconds of descent at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?
Because …
… the maximum distance any part of WTC7 could have fallen in the initial 0.5s is 1.22m
… and the video was shot from hundreds of metres away
… therefore the movement could not be accurately subdivided into enough data points to meaningfully graph.You’re dismissing it as measurement error, right?
1) Measurement error should be random, but this shows a clear trend.
2) The graph has two distinct regions, one of uniform velocity, followed by one of acceleration. This supposed measurement error doesn’t seem present on the graph once acceleration sets in.
3) From memory, I think you can see this motion on other camera angles; the visible shell of the building twists slightly in the horizontal plane, counter-clockwise if seen from above, immediately before the onset of the precipitous collapse.
3a) If Chandler indeed measured a descent, and it is indeed the vertical component of a visible horizontal twist, the motion should be more easily measured horizontally than vertically.
So, would you support my second criticism of the UAF report, namely:
– “I think that the report’s emphasis upon simulation is premature. It would have been more useful to concentrate upon data gathering and measurement, establishing limits of accuracy of initial conditions, and then crowd-source multiple simulation scenarios in the manner of Seti At Home or Folding At Home.”
…or would you rather dismiss this, er, anomaly so that you can add your voice to the demolition chorus?
Vronsky, I think you should factor into your psychological profiling of me that I have no qualms about members of US government plotting to kill US citizens to make a case for war. Members of US government are more than happy to kill US American citizens through police violence, poverty, monetary bars to healthcare, sending them to fight in the Middle East, pollution, and a host of other methods, so I don’t see why warmongering should be any different.
Quite apart from consideration of the physics (which itself is unambiguous), I severely doubt pre-rigged explosives because it would have been far too fucking easy to get caught.
Consider:
– “We’ve examined the design of the Twin Towers, and if structural failure across one storey can be induced anywhere below floor 105, complete destruction of the buildings is guaranteed. However, collapse could take around twenty seconds which is too slow for our theatrical objectives, so to ensure a collapse time of fifteen seconds or less, we propose a three month preparation program of covertly wiring demolitions on every floor. We have PR companies on standby should this be detected by any of the tens of thousands occupying the Towers every day, and death clauses will be included in every demolition worker’s contract.”
Nah.
You’re dismissing it as measurement error, right?
No. I’m dismissing your interpretation of Chandler’s data as nonsense. You isolated a tiny portion of time at the beginning of the fall, before meaningful measurement was possible, and saw what you wanted to see.
…. and thus providing Vronsky with another perfect example of Bayes Theorem in action.
^ this was intended to follow on from my comment at October 2, 2019 at 10:58.
Did you even bother looking for the horizontal twist?
Well the data points are plotted that way on Chandler’s graph, and he even plotted a line through them. And that’s how it appears in the UAF draft report. Here’s the citation again:
Report page 108, PDF page 120,
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf
Oh and it’s not “at the beginning of the fall”; it’s several seconds after the penthouse fell through the roof.
Sorry, who is being selective with the data here?
Node, earlier you justly criticised Kempe for attempting to discredit the researcher rather than addressing the research, but now here you are reinforcing Vronsky’s character assassination of me. Well I’ll be damned.
You and Vronsky are both wrong, demonstrably so because the cause of WTC7’s collapse doesn’t particularly matter to my interpretation of the events at the WTC complex – I regard both emergency post-rigged demolition of WTC7, and let’s call it < href=”https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/engineering-prof-releases-draft-report-on-9-11-collapse-of-wtc-bldg-7-in-nyc/#post-47289″>decoy pre-rigged demolition of WTC7, as more likely than pre-rigged demolition of WTCs 1, 2 and 7.
Here, posted by A&E9/11″Truth”:
You can see the top left corner move towards the camera location immediately before accelerating descent. You can also see windows going dark, in contradiction of the UAF report’s claim – “Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed”
Here’s some video of WTC7 burning:
You can see that the fires were severe. There is smoke issuing all the way up; you can see it issuing directly from a window about the fortieth floor, contradicting the UAF draft’s claim that there were no fires above floor 30. At 10:30 you can see that WTC7 is bent, leaning to the left from the damaged area upwards – put a straight-edge against your screen to check.
“Oh and it’s not “at the beginning of the fall”; it’s several seconds after the penthouse fell through the roof.
Sorry, who is being selective with the data here?”I answered your question :
Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how WTC7’s initial 0.5 seconds of descent at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?
I’ve got nothing further to say on this point. Others can judge who’s been selective.
I apologise for wording this incorrectly, and any confusion that may have caused. I should have written:
– “Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how the initial 0.5 seconds of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?”
Chandler’s data and graph do not begin until well into the collapse, the first clear sign of which was the collapse of the penthouse.
Good video thanks Clark – Has anyone tried to map the 7WTC fire locations to the occupants on those floors?
Look at what is still on the A&E9/11″Truth” site; Chandler’s
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower:https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/11-downward-acceleration-of-the-north-tower
This argument predicts that no structure that has successfully stood can undergo accelerating collapse. This is a site of architects and engineers; for them to continue to promote this they must be either incompetent or dishonest.
Here, Chandler sets out his reasoning regarding WTC7:
https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e
He repeatedly uses “free-fall” and “g” interchangeably, but they are not remotely interchangeable. Free-fall is a physical condition ie. something that happens to a real object in the real world, whereas g is a rate of acceleration ie. an intellectual abstraction, with no physical existence. To equate one with the other is like saying “it’s a mile to the shop, and it’s a mile to the dump, therefore the shop is the dump”. Just because something accelerates at g does not mean that it is necessarily in free-fall. I could crush a banana against the floor at g, but it wouldn’t be in free-fall. Yet Chandler writes this (in Part 2):
– “In the case of WTC 7 the fact of an extended period of free fall has been established by direct observation and measurement. See Part 1 of this series. We can conclude that all of the potential energy was being converted into kinetic energy with nothing left over to do anything else”
No. Direct observation and measurement establish only acceleration of the roof-line at (pretty close to) g. To establish free-fall we’d have to observe the whole moving object, to establish that nothing else (such as the core) was exerting force upon it. But we can’t see the internals of the building, so we can’t assume free-fall. On the contrary, we should assume that the internal components are exerting forces upon the outer visible structure, and since we saw the penthouse collapse before the outer structure, we have excellent grounds to suspect that those forces are acting downwards.
Hello Mark, good to see you. I hope you are well.
There is very little about fire mapping in the UAF draft, however it does refer to the mapping done by NIST.
But I would guess that there is much less detail for WTC7 than for the Towers, because WTC7 was evacuated (apart from Jennings and Hess) whereas many reports were received from people in the Towers, including police and fire-fighters.
– “At 10:30 you can see that WTC7 is bent, leaning to the left from the damaged area upwards – put a straight-edge against your screen to check”
Have any of the FEMA, ARUP, NIST or UAF included included this lean in their assessments? UAF claim to have included damage to the building, but they were yet to publish their data when I checked their site two days ago. To account for it properly they’d have to perform another simulation, a preliminary one to generate estimates of the state of the building after WTC1’s collapse inflicted this damage.
This lean also has implications for any pre-rigged “controlled” demolition hypothesis. Truthers constantly repeat that it takes months of calculation, planning and preparation to get a demolition just right, but a lean like this would render all that inaccurate. I count 19 storeys in the leaning section.
“Has anyone tried to map the 7WTC fire locations to the occupants on those floors?”
According to the NIST report, the worst fires were on floors 7-13.
According to the published list of tenants, US secret services occupied floors 9 & 10.
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.