New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001


Home Forums Discussion Forum New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001

  • This topic has 399 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 5 months ago by Clark.
Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 400 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51526 Reply
    Node

    No mixture. Girders were still melting weeks later.

    #51535 Reply
    Clark

    Agreed; part molten girders is what the witnesses said. But that’s evidence for ongoing fires, not a pointless, fantasy-tech demolition.

    #51536 Reply
    Clark

    At your link it says:

    Joe O’Toole, firefighter: “Underground fires raged for months…”

    Dunno see as that’s evidence for demolition, but it helps explain hot or molten metal.

    #51548 Reply
    Clark

    “Describe a plausible scenario involving the fuels you listed.”

    Er, there was an underground railway line beneath, which could have provided an air supply. If they got the trains running again, or trains were still running nearby in a connected tunnel, the trains push air ahead of themselves, as anyone familiar with the London Tube can confirm. This could have fanned fires.

    But I don’t see how months of fires suggest thermite or demolition anyway.

    #51549 Reply
    Node

    Agreed; part molten girders is what the witnesses said. But that’s evidence for ongoing fires, not a pointless, fantasy-tech demolition.

    More plausibly, it is evidence for large pools of molten steel, trapped and insulated by the wreckage. Steel that was heated so high above its melting point that it remained molten for weeks. Smaller pools would have soon solidified.
    Huge streams of molten steel cascaded down the outside of building therefore it’s reasonable to speculate that even more was running down the main support columns forming large pools. Girders semi-submerged in the pools were partially molten when uncovered by ground workers.

    That’s my scenario. I’m still waiting for yours.

    #51551 Reply
    Node

    [nested replies isn’t working for me either]

    You are not constructing a scenario, you are saying … er , well perhaps that stuff was the fuel, er, and maybe the air came from over there, er ….

    … and abracadabra … these unconnected and improbable elements combine randomly to make a steel foundry.

    #51552 Reply
    Clark

    One stream of molten unknown metal was seen. NIST said aluminium from the aircraft; I suspect lead from a battery room known to have been near the origin.

    “…therefore it’s reasonable to speculate that even more was running down the main support columns”

    No, because you’re proposing demolition by melting and (1) that’s too slow to sequence, you need explosives, which weren’t heard during collapse and (2) look at the debris; the bolts were ripped out of the perimeter box-column ends; the ends weren’t melted off. You think none of the workers would have noticed had all the ends been melted off?

    #51553 Reply
    Clark

    I don’t know why “fires raged for months”, but that’s what the witnesses said, so there was fuel and air, and it explains heat, so you don’t need demolition, not for the heat, nor for the collapse. Occam’s Razor – dispense with demolition. It’s good to dispense with because it would have been an unacceptable risk of exposure.

    Yeah, threading has failed for some posters but not others. Site Admin just upgraded site software. There are open bugs regarding threading on the software support forum.

    #51554 Reply
    Clark

    Node, you should be raging at Chandler along with me, because it’s obvious what’s happened; Chandler has misled 3000 (out of ~300,000 just in the US) architects and engineers with his “Downward Acceleration”, causing them to construct a false narrative around the “impossibility” of progressive collapse.

    Maybe you should read this.

    #51583 Reply
    Node

    (a) We’ve already established that your obsession with Chandler is irrational (see conversation from 2 days ago). You just can’t admit it.
    (b) Is there the slightest possibility in your mind that 3000 architects & engineers and a physics teacher might be know more than you about the laws of physics?
    (c) Regarding your sarcastic and insulting link about conspiracy theorists, has it occurred to you that someone who lives in a glass house propped up by such a ludicrous conspiracy theory that he cannot point to one single person in the world who agrees with him shouldn’t throw stones?

    #51587 Reply
    Westley Wood

    I was there up the street north about 4 blocks. Of a sudden No. 7 sank smoothly. Faster than 7 seconds. In the morning I was standing on W Broadway and Canal and saw the First WTC tower slowly smoothly sink maybe that took 8 seconds.

    #51588 Reply
    Clark

    Please, tell me more.

    #51589 Reply
    Clark

    Westley Wood, please tell me more, I meant. I thought threading was working now.

    #51590 Reply
    Clark

    Node, your remarks are all about me; you said above that you disapproved of that, so if you have any evidence or physics to discuss…

    3000 architects and engineers who accept a physics in which things can’t go past each other can’t be wrong I suppose… Even if 99% of architects and engineers say otherwise.

    #51591 Reply
    Clark

    So Node, you seem to be saying that you only believe something if others believe it too. Isn’t that the very definition of a sheeple? Follow the herd; you just picked a smaller one

    Without deviance, progress is impossible 😀 Maybe that’s why your lot have made no progress in nearly 19 years.

    #51593 Reply
    Paul+Peppiatt

    CLARK you are obviously an intelligent person, though a trifle polemic I suspect. Crystal Palace was constructed from cast iron and plate glass not steel. Science theory is just that, a theory.Scientific fact will probably never be established in this case how can it be?As for numbers of for and against, many of our greatest scientist were often found to be in the minority.that is until they proved the majority wrong.I think your input is a worthy stabilising factor in this debate providing balance to a topic that can go off the rails.Thank you.

    #51598 Reply
    Clark

    Paul+Peppiatt, you’re right that science doesn’t deal in certainties; science is organised scepticism, and every theory is provisional upon new information. But we’re nowhere near science’s cutting edge with the collapses of the Twin Towers. Calling those collapses impossible is like claiming that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, as the Wright Brothers were told; calculably false and demonstrably false.

    I run a wood stove; if I let it get too hot the heat warps the baffle plate. I weld, so I know full well that heat softens steel. Why else would building regulations require that structural steel be coated in fireproofing material? Go search the Internet for steel structures that have collapsed due to fire; war museums have plenty of exhibits.

    #51600 Reply
    Paul+Peppiatt

    CLARK. I have often questioned quoting burning temperatures of accelerants it serves no purpose unless you factor in the variables.Fuel on its own will have its temperature but burning in the right enclosure with oxygen being forced in you would then have conditions similar to that of a furnace .As you rightly say all theories need consideration until proven to be false but in this case this is impossible , you have no crime scene and any evidence was sold to China a bit lively, its these actions that gave life to the many theories almost creating a kind of information smog obscuring and obstructing any viable investigation.

    #51606 Reply
    Clark

    Paul P, I have various interests in 9/11, but my main objective here is something more important, namely the public understanding of: science, the scientific community, the scientific process and rational thought itself.

    Twin Tower demolition theory assaults the only possible process by which we can iterate towards facts; the most valuable, most powerful and indeed the most dangerous thing ever developed. And it does so by masquerading as the very process that it undermines.

    We daren’t just abandon rational thought every time there’s a cover-up. We mustn’t just pick a scenario, proclaim that’s what’s been covered up, and then crowd-source immitation rationality to “prove” it. In addition to the damage to the public’s ability to reason, it’s a gift of false cover stories to real perpetrators.

    #51607 Reply
    Clark

    What was the real target of 9/11?

    The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are predictably unanimous in saying that it was a pretext for the War on Terror. It is true that 9/11 enabled the invasion of Afghanistan to be a NATO operation rather than solely US, but the neocon US administration could have just ordered it and the US would have gone in alone. Just two years later for the Iraq invasion 9/11 was impotent and fake weapons of mass destruction had to be concocted. The Libya, Syria and Yemen wars derived no plausible justification from 9/11.

    Al Qaeda had nothing to gain by it, though that wouldn’t have stopped them, and the hijackers probably did believe that they were working for al Qaeda.

    Actually the most lasting legacy of 9/11 is the displacement of rationality by conspiracy theory, including the mainstream conspiracy theory. The Saudi hierarchy (oil money) funded and enabled it and the neocon US administration (oil money) made sure it succeeded. It was the start of the new millennium and the most important task humanity faced was achieving global unity to eliminate CO2 emissions to stop global warming; an economic disaster scenario for the aforementioned perpetrators. Was 9/11 actually an attack upon climate science, by attacking science and rationality themselves? It may as well have been.

    #51634 Reply
    Dave

    “Was 9/11 actually an attack on climate science”. Brilliant!

    #51635 Reply
    Clark

    Dave, look at the brand new denialism, CoVID-19 denialism. People are dropping dead of CoVID-19 around us, and yet there’s a whole swathe of commenters claiming that it’s invented, a hoax. They make no distinction between the scientific community and the corporate media, just as do the Twin Tower demolition theorists.

    It’s one thing to be told something by corporate journalism, and quite another to be told by the engineering or scientific communities.

    #51636 Reply
    Paul+Peppiatt

    CLARK. Do you realise the validity of your quote that Dave complimented you on? Does Dave?

    #51637 Reply
    SA

    Clark
    Some of the Covid-19 denialists have now aligned themselves imperceptibly with the attitude and the consequences of the attitude taken by Trump ang Johnson by ‘belittleing’ the virus.in other words they have become shills for those most right wing of governments. In so doing they also missed the opportunity to criticise those two governments for gross mishandling of the crisis.

    #51638 Reply
    SA

    But I partially disagree with you that 911 had not been useful for the Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen wars. The usefulness has been twofold, by establishing the machinery for widespread surveillance and by creating a general background fear of state assisted terrorism that paved the way for attacking states. Remember the demonisation of Saddam started with the Anthrax attack after 911 and the attempts to link it to Iraq. Then there was a lot of misinformation that Saddam had secret ties with AQ. As these failed to convince the politically savvy, I am sure there are many in US backwaters who still believe these stories and it created an air of negativity. It also served the blue print for future attacks: multiple accusations are thrown in and hope some will stick.
    But the most amazing fact that emerged out of the warped neocon mentality is that the US is now firmly allied through its proxy NATO allies to the same organisation allegedly responsible for 911, in Syria and Iraq.

    #51645 Reply
    Node

    “Some of the Covid-19 denialists have now aligned themselves imperceptibly with the attitude and the consequences of the attitude taken by Trump ang Johnson by ‘belittleing’ the virus.”

    Use of the “denialist” word is becoming common among lazy thinkers. Like “conspiracy theorist,” its purpose is to dismiss debate, to suggest that a POV is self-evidently ridiculous, to relieve the accuser of the need to address awkward questions that arise from that POV. It is an effective tactic to influence other lazy thinkers. However it exposes the accuser to ridicule because when pressed, they have to admit that they too are “denialists” and conspiracy theorists.” What they actually mean by those phrases is “people who believe different conspiracy theories to me” and “people who are sceptical about different aspects of an issue to me.”

    Let me prove it. SA, please define a “Covid-19 denialist.”

    #51646 Reply
    SA

    Node
    Before we get into definitions we need to establish some basic common grounds:
    1. Do we both believe that there is a pandemic caused by a novel corona virus new to man with no immunity to the virus and this is an animal virus that has jumped species?
    2. Do we both believe that this virus is highly infectious with an exponential curve of infection resulting in a very quick spread around the world with infections documented in most countries in the world over 2-3 months?
    3. Do we both believe that this virus can cause death, Although this lethality is more commonly associated with older individuals and those with other co-morbidities?
    4. Do we both believe that although the above is true, that some younger people are also severely affected and that there have been many deaths in healthcare workers and bus drivers and others who were previously healthy?
    5. Do we both believe that even if the mortality rate from this virus may not be more than 1%, there is still a high number of people suffering from the disease at the same time that this is likely to swamp healthcare systems? Examples occur in Italy and Spain and probably now in US although there are other problems there too which obscure the real situation and there is a threat of it happening here.
    6. Finally do we both believe that there is still little understanding of various aspects of this virus, including that many infections may cause no symptoms and that unfortunately we do not have tests for immunity? Do we both believe that we do not know whether individuals infected with the virus will have immunity against reinfection?

    If one of us does not believe in this set of statements, then we can begin to try to understand what it is that may or may not constitute a denialist. I agree it is a crude term because even in the 911 truthers there are various degrees of denialists. By the way, I do not think there is anything wrong with putting forward a conspiracy theory and I am sorry the term has been weaponised. For example I hold the belief that the last election was rigged on many different levels, and that I think is a good conspiracy theory worth pursuing. It really is a question of degrees of contortion required to try and prove the unprovable at each step that I find becomes a conspiracy theory too far.

    #51647 Reply
    Dave

    I should have added, Brilliant Ha Ha! I’m just amazed how Clark can promote heroic amounts of intelligent nonsense in defence of official narratives, without it eating away his soul. No wonder he’s always playing the victim card, as if this offers some salvation!

    Re Covid-19. According to Office of National Statistics the average overall death rate this year is below the preceding 5 years and the number of corona-virus deaths are being inflated by confusing died WITH, as opposed died FROM corona-virus. So clearly the great panic isn’t about the virus!

    #51649 Reply
    Clark

    Paul P at 01:19 – sorry, I don’t understand your question; please rephrase.

    #51650 Reply
    Clark

    SA at 02:41 – “The usefulness has been twofold, by establishing the machinery for widespread surveillance and by creating a general background fear of state assisted terrorism that paved the way for attacking states.”

    I agree. But this doesn’t satisfy “que bono”; it indicates nothing about who the perpetrators may have been, since any authoritarians could, and have, made such use of 9/11.

    #51651 Reply
    Node

    “Before we get into definitions we need to establish some basic common grounds”

    What I believe is irrelevant to the point I made about the use of “denialist,” with its connotations of Holocaust denial, to shut down discussion. If the meaning isn’t evident without discussion, you shouldn’t use it. But since you you have recognised the validity of my point with your remarks about conspiracy theorists, I will answer your questions.

    1. Do we both believe that there is a pandemic ….

    Yes, all flu viruses spread throughout the world and are therefore pandemics.

    … caused by a novel corona virus new to man with no immunity to the virus …

    Yes, all viruses mutate into varieties that are novel to their hosts. That’s what viruses do, mutate to new forms which their hosts don’t have antibodies to fight, thus the virus prospers and spreads until enough of the host has immunity at which point it would die out if it didn’t mutate into a novel variation, then the whole cycle repeats. All viruses have done this for a billion+ years.

    … and this is an animal virus that has jumped species?

    Don’t know. I’m not an expert. As I understand it : viruses mutate by mix-and-matching the DNA in the cells they invade … they can do this in animal and plant cells … if the mutation did involve DNA from an animal cell, this wouldn’t be unusual and wouldn’t necessarily make the virus more dangerous.

    2. Do we both believe that this virus is highly infectious with an exponential curve of infection resulting in a very quick spread around the world with infections documented in most countries in the world over 2-3 months?

    Yes, I believe if you tracked any viral infection in real time, you would see it spread as you describe.

    3. Do we both believe that this virus can cause death, Although this lethality is more commonly associated with older individuals and those with other co-morbidities?

    Yes, in that respect this virus acts like any flu virus.

    4. Do we both believe that although the above is true, that some younger people are also severely affected and that there have been many deaths in healthcare workers and bus drivers and others who were previously healthy?

    Yes, a very small number of younger people are severely affected, same as other flus. For all ages, death nearly always involves pre-existing conditions. For example, in Italy, only 0.8% of the deceased had no pre-existing chronic illnesses.

    5. Do we both believe that even if the mortality rate from this virus may not be more than 1%, there is still a high number of people suffering from the disease at the same time that this is likely to swamp healthcare systems?

    Yes, our NHS has been run down to the point where it has no spare capacity for anything. Our health services have prioritised a routine problem – vulnerable people catching flu – and thrown far more resources than they would do normally at every case. That is why the services are overwhelmed.

    Examples occur in Italy and Spain and probably now in US although there are other problems there too which obscure the real situation and there is a threat of it happening here.

    Yes, for the same reasons – no health system can cope if you demand huge resources are thrown at a very common health problem.

    6. Finally do we both believe that there is still little understanding of various aspects of this virus …

    Yes, as is the case for every new variation of a virus. Until we get the data – how it spreads, mortality rate, symptoms, recurrence rate, etc – we don’t know what we’re dealing with or how dangerous it is. In the case of Covid-19, we took unprecedented extreme measures before we had this data.

    …. including that many infections may cause no symptoms …

    Yes, the vast majority will have no symptoms, or very mild ones, as is is typical with flu.

    … and that unfortunately we do not have tests for immunity?

    I don’t understand what you mean. We haven’t tested widely for infection, therefore we don’t the total infected, therefore we don’t know the mortality rate.

    Do we both believe that we do not know whether individuals infected with the virus will have immunity against reinfection?

    Yes, recurrence is possible with all flus.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Now, I’ve fully answered all your questions. Please answer one of mine:

    Do you believe the figures released as coronavirus deaths in the UK and many other countries, including the ones you mentioned – Italy, Spain, Germany, the USA – are deliberately and hugely exaggerated?

    #51652 Reply
    Clark

    Node at 11:18 – every statement is a generalisation to some extent. Nouns themselves group things with differences under a single label; I can think of no way of avoiding this.

    However, denial is a genuine psychological phenomenon. We can spot it in others quite easily, but our own is of course hidden from us by its very nature.

    There are various ways to theorise eg. scientifically, rationally, politically, superstitiously, religiously etc. These are not rigidly defined; rather, they are characterisations, and there is considerable overlap between most of them.

    Conspiracy theory seems best characterised by its use of appeal to an assumed motive of some poorly defined group. You can see above in my April 10, 23:52 that I refer to the “mainstream conspiracy theory”, in which 9/11 was arbitrarily attributed to the motives of “Muslims”. There are plenty of others, blamed on, say “Russia”.

    Denialism is similar to but the opposite of sensationalism; promoting certain facts while ignoring or dismissing others, and the slanting of language and use of rhetoric, primarily to convince others that a matter of concern is purely imaginary.

    When you suggest that all theories are conspiracy theories, you’re like someone unable to smell their own fart.

    #51653 Reply
    Dave

    So Clark are you a “changes in climate” denialist?

    #51654 Reply
    Clark

    Node at 13:58 – our comments crossed and I hadn’t seen this reply to SA when I wrote my description of denialism. You wrote:

    “Do you believe the figures released as coronavirus deaths in the UK and many other countries, including the ones you mentioned – Italy, Spain, Germany, the USA – are deliberately and hugely exaggerated?”

    Well I don’t. You’re indulging in denialism; constantly going on about the ways that the figures might be over-counted, while consistently ignoring the ways they get undercounted. It’s also conspiracy theory: “…deliberately and hugely exaggerated” – yeah, by virtually every national scientific institution, university, health authority and government in the world – a motive of some poorly defined group.

    #51655 Reply
    Clark

    Dave at 12:23 – “Clark can promote heroic amounts of intelligent nonsense in defence of official narratives

    As I wrote April 11 at 19:32, you make no distinction between the corporate media narrative and the scientific / technical narrative.

    There isn’t even a monolithic “official narrative”, from government or governments. eg. part of the 9/11 Commission Report was redacted, and the neocon administration tried to prevent the 9/11 Commission from happening at all. The term “official narrative” clouds thought, and conspiracy theorists use it a lot.

    #51656 Reply
    Clark

    Dave at 14:24 – “So Clark are you a “changes in climate” denialist?”

    Of course not; there have been massive changes in climate, millions of years before humans existed. But that fact is misused by non-rational propagandists. It’s like saying “asteroids have hit Earth before, so one hitting us now wouldn’t be so bad”.

    #51658 Reply
    Clark

    Another feature of conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists assign almost superhuman powers to the conspiracy. We have an example on this page:

    J, April 6, 01:50“The sound of the charges and the flash as they go off has always removed by some pixel jockey in every video close enough to record it what actually happened.”

    Conspiracy theorists very rarely challenge each other on this sort of thing. So long as a claim differs from “the official narrative”, it draws no challenge from other conspiracy theorists, no matter how diverse their theories. On the other hand, criticising such a claim often elicits howls of “supporting the official narrative”, often accompanied by very unpleasant accusations that the critic is promoting war or authoritarianism or whatever. It is this sort of gang enforcement that encourages distortion of the facts among conspiracy theorists; it is anti-sceptical, yet conspiracy theorists would rather be called sceptics.

    #51661 Reply
    Dave

    The purpose of the ‘corona-crisis’ is to tank the economy to stop Brexit and sink Trump. Boris initially advocated a proportionate response, but folded quickly and went into hiding, but the indomitable Trump is doing better and has got ahead of the plot and hopefully will lift the deep state restrictions before too much harm is done, giving Boris a chance to re-emerge and do the same.

    #51662 Reply
    Dave

    So what do humans have to do to stop another asteroid hitting?

    #51663 Reply
    Paul+Peppiatt

    CLARK. Where to begin? how about a secret treaty between the US and Saudi Arabia drawn up in 1972.This treaty stated that if China or Russia try to invade the Middle East then Saudi Arabia would invite the US to the Holy land to repel them. There were conditions, promising to buy military equipment from US etc. G. Bush snr. in 91 mugs Saddam Hussein into invade Kuwait, whilst at the same time convincing the Saudis that they were next.Who should he send to convince the Saudis to envoke this Treaty of 72, Mr Cheney no less.Cheney almost pulls it off but Saudi intel are onto him and offer an alternative to inviting the US to the Holy land. That alternative was named Osama Bin Laden. On hearing of this Cheney sweetens his deal by offering to protect the Saudi leadership from their own citizens and the rest as they say is history. Ha Ha Dave, did you know?

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 400 total)
Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001
Your information: