Study of the NIST Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Theory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Sep 13, 2017.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what exactly/specifically did you "look at much more closely"?

    Edit: You're absolutely right, the building had to come down as a result of catastrophic structural damage. What's in question is what caused such catastrophic structural damage. That's the controversy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science is not a conspiracy theory. Science has proven the NIST theory is impossible (only a peer review process can refute that and you are free to participate in that one if you wish, it will be open to everyone). So that has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. So please enlighten me, what was that "everything" you looked at (besides conspiracy theories) that led you to your conclusion? I would be interested to find out what you felt was more convincing than Hulsey's study and caused you to reject it. Please be specific, that's way too broad.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but that does not answer the question, you're just generalizing about "conspiracy theories" and even that answer makes no sense. I asked you how you came to the conclusion that THIS OP is a "conspiracy theory". I don't believe you understand the difference between science, theory, conspiracy and conspiracy theory. For example (with regard to 9/11), there's a thread in this section of the forum devoted to:

    9/11 Fact vs 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11-fact-vs-9-11-conspiracy-theory.511381/

    I suggest you review it for examples.

    For non 9/11 issues, there are entire industries centered around conspiracy theories, the intelligence and criminal justice systems for example. There are multiple statutes revolving around conspiracies (e.g. the RICO Act) so that involves the legislative system. Many who have careers in those disciplines have been thoroughly educated in and devote their entire careers around conspiracy theories. So to call conspiracy theories "idiotic" makes no sense.

    So once you get a better understanding, please answer the question highlighted above or correct yourself.



     
  4. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're not seeing the main problem with conspiracy theories here. Blaming the "liberal media" doesn't fly because a verified 9/11 conspiracy would certainly be big news as would the arrests, convictions and executions of the conspirators.
     
  5. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're getting lost in the weeds here. I'm talking about human nature vis-à-vis conspiracy theories.

    Yes, conspiracies exist. We conspired to develop atomic weapons before the Germans did. We conspired to kill Osama bin Laden. The problem is, regardless of how classified it is, such plots always leak or are revealed. Why? Too many people involved. Look at "the Pentagon Papers", Snowden, etc. Somebody will talk and will provide evidence of their words.
     
  6. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    ...
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but that doesn't answer my question either. I think it's you who's lost in your own nonsense.

    That's exactly what I mean. You said "this OP is a conspiracy theory" and I asked you how you came to that conclusion, it's really a very simple question. And rather than answer the question, you're changing the topic as you tried to do before as a substitute for an answer. Never mind, the truth is you have no idea, just like I said, even a parrot can say that and that's what you've obviously been taught to do. It's also why you said it's a "short answer", you have no long answer. Anything to do with 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory" to you, no logic or reason to it, it's just a term associated with anything about 9/11. But substantiating your claim is impossible just like it was impossible for the mods to explain it. All they had was "others agree" and they just said so.
     
  8. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A freedom you are allowed to enjoy the same as me.

    The fact remains that "conspiracy theory" is a psychological phenomena, not an actual reality. It's as nonsensical as someone claiming that if they keep practicing holding their breath underwater, eventually they'll grow gills.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed but totally irrelevant, it doesn't answer the question.

    That doesn't answer the question either ... as usual, evading. I never asked you to define a "conspiracy theory" nor was I looking for one from you.

    Whatever that means to you. It has nothing to do with your statement or my question. Like I said, the bottom line is you have no idea, you can't correlate a highly relevant and newsworthy scientific discovery to a "conspiracy theory". Science is not a psychological phenomena, it's very real. News is not a psychological phenomena either, it's just news. They never were and never will be "psychological phenomena". Come back if and when you have a genuine, sensible scientific argument for why a newsworthy scientific discovery is a "conspiracy theory". I'm not interested in your personal definition of a "conspiracy theory" and your disdain for these "psychological phenomena", they're just obvious evasions.
     
  10. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Likewise.

    As anyone with common sense knows, I can't, nor am trying, to persuade a conspiracy theorist from believing "the gub'mint" planned 9/11 or whatever theory they are pushing. I'm only voicing an opinion of why some believe in "conspiracy theories" for the edification of anyone who cares to scroll through this thread.

    Have a nice day, sir. [​IMG]
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And here I thought we were talking about Dr. Hulsey's scientific discovery as a "conspiracy theory". I mean, common sense dictates that since the OP here is called "Study of the NIST Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Theory" that that would be the topic of discussion, no? Not for you?

    Thanks but you're in the wrong thread for that. This one is about the news of Dr. Hulsey's forensic analytic scientific discovery with regard to NIST's published theory about the "collapse" of WTC7 (the technical details are being discussed in a companion thread). That it was moved to the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the forum despite my protest is out of my control, I originally posted it where it belongs.

    Thanks you too. If and when you ever figure out what this thread is all about, please by all means, join the discussion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  12. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As many others have pointed out, Dr. Hulsey's research is flawed. I see no reason to recover over material.

    You are free to believe Dr. Hulsey and any other conspiracy theory you like. Moving on, what do you think caused WTC 7 to collapse and who do you believe was behind 9/11? Answering those questions could either bring us together or show how far apart we are in this issue.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you're making this up for what purpose? Do you have any clue what peer review is? Do you understand that before a paper is peer reviewed it first has to be published? And that Dr. Hulsey has yet to publish his paper for peer review? So how on earth could anyone have pointed out his research is "flawed" much less "many others"?

    Do you believe everyone is stupid and you can post any nonsense you want in the hopes someone would buy it? So far not one single person has even attempted to tackle the technical issues I've been posting in the companion thread much less pointed out any flaws. And if you ever read any of my posts on the subject, you would know I invited any poster to that discussion several times. So far, not one taker.

    But rather than posting outright lies why don't you source your claim with a link to just one legitimate forensic analysis that lists any flaw in a yet to be published paper by Dr. Hulsey?
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  14. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you avoiding my question? Did you miss it? Here, I'll post it again:

     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  15. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks. For you, I'll unsubscribe from your conspiracy thread. Adios!
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't let the door hit you. Get an education before you attempt an intelligent discussion in this thread and quit lying you're way too obvious.
     
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,148
    Likes Received:
    26,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess we need another conspiracy theory thread explaining why the video in the OP doesn't work and the sound in the reposted video doesn't work! :eek:

    As someone with a structural engineering background I peer reviewed the original NIST report on WTC7 myself.

    While there were some minor points I would have like to have clarified the overall results follow all normal accepted engineering principles.

    Anyone with any knowledge of Strengths of Materials knows that steel will lose rigidity in proportion to the degree to which it is heated.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...es/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    The steel in WTC7 was under stress and subjected to heat from the burning oil from the substation transformers. All of the beams in the vicinity of the fire would have been compromised by the heat and would have been weaker than normal without the fire. Under those circumstances a single failure would have had a cascading effect as the load from the initial failed beam transferred onto the neighboring compromised beams causing them to fail and repeating the domino effect until the building collapsed.

    There are no valid conspiracy theories as far as the WTC goes. The impacts and subsequent uncontrolled fires brought down the towers and the uncontrolled fire in WTC7 caused the collapse of the bridging structure over the substation.

    The only pertinent question that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists cannot answer is why were all of the NYC fire departments involved in the conspiracy and cover up themselves at the cost of their own lives and health?

    The answer is that they weren't because there is no conspiracy.
     
    DoctorWho and Shinebox like this.
  18. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,015
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, "conspiracy theory" is a term used in the English language, consisting of two words, both found in any ordinary dictionary. You might consider consulting such a dictionary so that your posts might make sense.

    It's not likely, I guess, but if you do that, you will discover that humans conspire all the time, and many have theories
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,015
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you're somehow not fully informed as to the definition of conspiracy. Simply put, it means only that 2 or more people plan to accomplish some goal, usually nefarious in nature. Torture the language as you wish, and all you will have is misunderstandings.

    The only pertinent question is why were all the NYC fire departments involved in a conspiracy? What a weird statement. As, in the vernacular (however tortured), I am a CT, and I have never had that thought cross my mind. Why? Because I saw footage over the years of numerous firemen speaking the truth about what they had seen.

    I would say that neither you nor NIST nor anybody else can answer or explain how and why the first and last time EVER that even 1 modern steel building "collapsed" (tortured language again) due to small fires on the upper floors was all on the same day, 3 buildings, on the same city block?

    As you're in the field, what say thee about the 2300 architects and engineers who find egregious error and sophistry in the official story?
     
  20. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,148
    Likes Received:
    26,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fire in WTC7 was UNDER the building in the electrical substation that the building was "bridged" over.

    The collapse of the towers was essentially caused by a similar Strengths of Materials failure owing to the impact damage which increased the loads on the remaining members that were subsequently weakened by the fires. As soon as there was a single point of failure because of the fires burning out of control the domino collapse began from the top down.

    If you have ever watched a structural demolition video the process is to "cut" the support beams and then allow gravity to bring down the building under it's own weight. The WTC towers had "cuts" to the support members by the impact of the planes and then the remaining steel was weakened by the fires to the point of collapse. Gravity did the rest.

    As far as the fallacy of appealing to the "authority" of other believers in conspiracy theorists goes that is like saying others believe the moon is made of cheese so therefore you should believe they way they do.

    The math and physics don't lie.

    You can try this experiment for yourself. Take a group of your fellow conspiracy theorists and all stand around a small car. Then together pick it up and carry it over a fire pit. See what happens as one by one each of your fellow conspiracy theorists can no longer take the heat and lets go of the car.
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm so sorry you're having such difficulties. For actual working videos, PDF slides and a complete transcript of Dr. Hulsey's work, please find these at post #233 (for the video), post #225 for the PDF slides and post #241 (for both the video and the transcript) in this thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/

    It really doesn't take painstaking effort to find these but you are certainly free to start another conspiracy theory thread about your difficulties if you must.

    It's simply amazing how many anonymous self professed "engineers" there are in this forum who support/defend the official narrative and reject the work of many others in their profession who criticize/contradict/question the official narrative and publish detailed papers on the subject and sign their names to their work. Many of these experts have also conducted peer reviews of NIST's official publication and this particular one (Dr. Hulsey's, the subject of this thread) was the most meticulous and thorough of them all. The problem with every single one of these is that they're all LIMITED to the information that NIST made publicly available in pieces (due to FOIA request obligations). Since NIST failed to make ALL the data and methodology publicly available (even via FOIA requests), true peer review of their work is IMPOSSIBLE. So even your claimed peer review can only be a LIMITED one. My question to you is did you publish your findings as others have done? And if you did, do you have a link to it?

    That's an interesting conclusion since the most thorough peer review ever conducted (again the subject of this thread), thoroughly contradicts your assessment and by extension, you are contradicting these latest findings, yet you have not posted one single sentence disputing Dr. Hulsey's findings in any detail. In fact, I don't see any post of yours in the thread that thoroughly examines NIST's official publications or Dr. Hulsey's findings. i guess it's just easier to spit out a one liner rather than go into any supporting detail. That's so typical of most anonymous self proclaimed "engineers" who support/defend the official narrative in this forum.

    So you claim to have peer reviewed NIST's work and claim that "the overall results follow all normal accepted engineering principles", yet here you are contradicting the NIST, ARUP and Weidlinger's theories and posting your very own theory on WTC7. Do you have any paper on your theory that you published for peer review? If you do, please provide a link. Thanks. It seems to me you are contradicting yourself.

    BTW, a technical discussion on the destruction of the WTC towers on 9/11 is not a "conspiracy theory", it's merely a collapse theory (i.e. strictly science) so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "There are no valid conspiracy theories as far as the WTC goes".

    Sorry but the above is irrelevant to this thread. It has nothing to do with the news of Dr. Hulsey's research and discovery.

    You're all over the place. This is a discussion of Dr. Hulsey's findings, not your personal theory(ies). Again, please post a link to YOUR personal peer reviewed paper on YOUR theory, preferably in another thread. This isn't really the thread for that discussion.

    At least we agree on that.
     
  22. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,148
    Likes Received:
    26,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Get back to me when you can dispute the Strengths of Materials facts that I posted in my link.

    Unless you can prove that the beams that failed were NOT subject to both the heat and the stresses involved you don't have any basis that refutes my findings.

    That you utterly failed to even address the experiment that you and your fellow CT'ers could conduct for yourselves to determine first hand how the building supports behave when exposed to heat and stress says volumes.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that you ignored it because you already know that the results would debunk your inane conspiracy theories.
     
  23. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,015
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you suppose it is that so many other modern steel buildings, both here in the US and all around the world, have caught fire, burned all night, yet did not collapse as the towers did? Why is it that at least one of those buildings was put back into service after burning all night? Why is it that none of those building blew large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally? Why have none of those buildings left molten iron bubbling for 90 days?

    What does science and common sense say about that?
     
  24. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,148
    Likes Received:
    26,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The impact of the planes would have sent debris flying. Other buildings did not have plane impacts.

    The WTC fires were caused by fossil fuels like kerosene and refined transformer oil. What kinds of fuels were burning in those other buildings?

    When architects and engineers are tasked with the structures of large buildings they include what is called a Factor of Safety. In essence they over engineer the structure so that ordinary fires will not bring down the building. What happened at the WTC was not ordinary. No one had anticipated that planes would impact the buildings at full speed and then set them alight after causing massive structural damage.

    Your last point about the molten iron is mostly speculation. That there were fires that continued to burn long after the buildings collapsed is hardly surprising given that you had two entire building's worth of flammable materials in huge piles. As the top was cleared from each pile the smoldering debris below would ignite as soon as fresh oxygen reached it. The temperature inside the rubble pile would have remained high since it was heavily insulated and there was nothing to cool it off. As to the metal itself I seriously doubt that it was "bubbling iron". There was a great deal of lighter metals, including masses of aluminum, with considerably lower melting points in that debris. That some of it was near the "hot spots" would be inevitable.

    In summary those other buildings were not impacted by planes that damaged their structural components to the point where fire would have compromised the integrity of the remaining supports. The impacts caused the debris to be flung from the buildings and the other buildings never collapsed into burning piles that contained the aluminum fuselages of planes.
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,015
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course airplane debris would have flown at the moment of impact, and certainly some did. An engine ended up blocks away on the sidewalk. Pieces ended up at the Burlington Coat Factory too. Indeed, maybe 10 years later they found yet another piece at Burlington, some part of the flap track assembly. Naturally, and like all the rest of the aircraft debris, national security was invoked to keep any prying eyes from examining those pieces, and lo and behold, it turns out the engine was the wrong type for a standard 767. Yes, the plot thickens, because the large pieces of structure I'm talking about came as the towers were destroyed.

    Gravity did the rest? How did gravity move those pieces out there? Further, why did the same thing not happen to the other buildings which became fully engaged in fire, unlike WTC?

    Defending the official story is like trying to put the round peg into the square hole--it doesn't work. Sooner or later sir, you will discover that, assuming you're both curious and honest with yourself.
     

Share This Page