Good post

Column 79 was on the east side. The east side of the building was on fire. wtc 7 took structural damage from the west and south but heavy structural damage like that massively reduces the support loads of the entire building. Not being able to put out the fires continued to weaken the columns on the side of the fire that supported the heaviest load ... the penthouse. I guess i could have sperated the damage locations from the wtcs and the fire but w/e.

Please contribute more to this.

To add a little ... While it's obviously correct when you said ... : It's the same **** Leroy used in his discussions as some type of gotcha for the mouth breathers to reach a conclusion that a detonation would make more sense. NIST specifically lays out that the fires burning for so long was a contributing factor on top of the structural damage.

He's said both that he did it and didn't do it. Also there are questions about the authenticity of some of the various videos with him making statements.

I don't think many people doubt OBL's sincerity behind his cause. He's been consistently clear on his beef with the U.S. which has always been with it's military encroachment into the ME. He could have been thinking he could get a larger following by saying he did it. He knew they were going to pin it on him anyway. I don't think the truth determination of the matter should in any way be influenced by what OBL said. We should have hard evidence if there was any.

There are crazy theories about him being a Mossad creation of course, but I don't think they are widely accepted. People have pointed out that AQ never attacks Israel, which I think is interesting, but doesn't indicate a client relationship with Israel.

I'm marking you down as "passed grade school science."

Yeah I'll just carve out 100 million from the federal budget to run an investigation. And I'll give myself subpoena powers after I create a commission. Why didn't I think of this before? I'm starting to think you are as smart as you think you are, d2.

Up until your post I was thinking the point of the truth movement was to disprove the lies the government has told and to put political pressure on our representatives to form a proper investigation of the crime. We could invoke international cooperation to the effort, that cooperation justified given the unholy destruction and terror we've unleashed on the world under the dishonest assumptions we've chosen to pretend to believe. The rest of the world can help us figure out the truth and form a response structured on justice, not on economic and geopolitical advantage seeking.

Well it's true. I did.

I'm not part of your movement, Tweedledumb. Think of me like a reporter. I'm asking you questions about your movement, and to cite sources where I am interested in exploring further. So far, you are not doing great on the "sources" front.

Just as an aside, I have yet to see any movement or cause with "truth" in the name which isn't unequivocally full of ****. See Truth Social, for example.

That's just not true for extended bodies in classical mechanics. But thanks for at least saying something clear enough to be determined false.



That basic logic or hand calc Newtonian physics(not that anybody even did any!) are enough to make it obvious planes couldn't collapse large buildings is a ludicrous claim filled with a ton of errors like this. I can't imagine too many people with actual science training or skills buying into these truther narratives on the pure physics side. There's no motivation to go into fire proofing and obscure materials science claims when the high school level stuff is already wrong. To be fair, the political explanations are probably even worse.

good post, but they'll obviously say there's a reason why the video doesn't show someone pushing down at the chain on the left

NIST report suggests fires were the factor in causing collapse, and structural damage from fallen WTC1 was not even contributing (except for instigating the fires that were responsible). column 79 initiates the collapse sequence in their model, and there's no discussion of what role the original structural damage would have played in facilitating the collapse

reiterating from above:
"Even without the structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." (p. 49)

so they're maintaining that an "ordinary" office fire (i.e. accelerated by typical office equipment rather than jet fuel) caused the near-instant progressive collapse of the entire structure.

i don't pretend to know what happened that day, but do understand truthers' skepticism regarding wtc7 when there's no precedent for a collapse like that from an ordinary office fire, of which there have been many.

anyone certain they know exactly what happened is probably suffering from authority bias or motivated reasoning confirming their conspiracy spidey senses

Stating that the building would've collapsed without the damage does not mean the damage played no role in the collapse. That's a pretty obvious non-sequitur.

There is absolutely nothing ordinary about any fire in an office building, especially one that burned unchecked for as long as this one did. Insisting on using this word "ordinary" is a bizarre emotional appeal and nothing else. And there is more in an office building than "office equipment." This is one of the more brazen truther dishonesties, frankly. "Ordinary" catastrophic fire that burned for 5 hours unfought and completely engulfed a building that an entire skyscraper took huge chunks out of earlier in the day. Don't worry, though, it was only "typical" office stuff that fueled the fire. Staplers, and chairs and whatnot. Blatant dishonesty.

Speaking of despicable dishonesty, it was absolutely not even remotely "near instant."

No, there haven't been many even remotely comparable fires, and building designs vary wildly in their susceptibility to such things.

Or understands physics and logic at a basic level. But don't think we don't know why you stuck the word "exactly" in there.

take it up with NIST? it doesn't factor into their model, and they were incorporating any known facts imaginable into an explanation for why the building collapsed how it did.

again, take it up with NIST, which is the source material for disputing wtc7 truther claims

"The fires on these six floors were fed by combustibles (e.g., desks, chairs, papers, carpet) that were ordinary for commercial occupancies." (p. 51)

i offered four examples of comparably sized office buildings that sustained fires on similar or greater # of floors and similar or greater duration. if you want to provide any counterexamples of fires that led to demo-like collapses be my guest? afaik they don't exist. but just keep doing you asserting 100% confidence in everything you say by righteous fiat with no evidence to back it up

But the CIA has such a stellar reputation, huh?

Here you go Deuces, you got a serious physicist here, like the ones you claim never engage in these discussions for "reasons". If you're nice to him he might even hang around to answer any questions you might have.

It's always "whatabout" with you guys. The **** the CIA have to do with what I just said?

The "truther" claim is not that planes cannot collapse large buildings. The government claim is not that planes collapsed large buildings.

Why can't we start with the actual claims at least? Then we can get into your theory about how things crush down from internal structural failure as fast as they fall through air.

I don't need to. They didn't make the statement I take issue with. You did.

That might be a big gotcha if WTC7 was 6 floors tall. Or if the word "exclusively" was used. Or if it called the fire "ordinary." NIST called the furnishing decisions of the 6 floors "ordinary," not the #$@)*(@$# fire. Good grief. It's hard for me to believe you think you are being honest.

What relevant factors do you think might be different? Do you think 4 is "many?" What is a "demo-like collapse?" Do you just mean "collapse" or is this more of the colorful language you use to appeal to emotion dishonestly?

Which one of your 4 examples do you think illustrates your point best? Let's take a look at the differences that might lead to it having a different outcome.

You are using reputations of movements with "truth" in the name to judge the validity of the claims of the 9/11 truth movements. But you aren't applying the same standard to the CIA or else you wouldn't be believing everything they say, as you do.

I am making an observation about naming conventions, Tweedledumb.

Sounds like an ordinary catastrophic fire happened and the fire sprinklers didn’t go off


Yes or no

you lack the necessary reading comprehension to even discuss these things. i'm clearly presenting the findings of the NIST report, which state explicitly that the building would've collapsed as it did whether there was structural damage or not. additionally, none of their model -- which intends to model the entire collapse process -- mentions the structural damage as being of consequence. if you want to introduce outside evidence suggesting it played a major role, by all means.

again, just read my excerpts from above or -- better -- read the report. you're arguing with the report. they said while fire may have occurred on at 10 different floors, the consequential fire that spread and took out the column was contained on 6 floors (7-9, 11-13)

that's my question to you

i think it is greater than zero

a collapse resembling one that occurs when a building is intentionally demolished. can't tell whether you're intentionally being obtuse

i'm not a construction or fire expert. just noting the fact that there is no comparable event here, and the closest counterexamples resulted in massively opposite outcomes. you can tell me which one is least illustrative, or better yet provide counterexamples.

i'm done investing any work on this thread when virtually everyone else is just flinging poo... "OK TINFOIL HAT" // "LOL YOU BELIEVE ALL THE LIES THE GOVT TELLS YOU?!" // "WHATS YOUR PROOF?" --> "I ALREADY SAID 10 YEARS AGO GO LOOK IT UP" jfc

I had a post-doc at NIST. Think I may have discovered 2p2 while working there.

Which I already agreed it said and clarified to you that it doesn't mean the damage played no role in its collapse. This couldn't be more clear. You are making a simple logical error. If I said that my weedkiller would've been washed off of my flower bed whether it got rained on or not because I watered the plants, does that mean that it definitely wasn't rain that washed the weedkiller off? If you don't see how it doesn't, we cannot go further with this as you are absolutely ill-equipped for this conversation. I'm going to need a yes or no on this one to confirm you are capable of elementary logic.

This also does not mean that structural damage did not play a part in the collapse. Once again, saying that the building would've collapsed even if there was no structural damage does not mean that structural damage did not play a part in the collapse. It's not me that's struggling with comprehension here.

No, I'm telling you that you are making a very basic logical error in interpreting the report.

I've already told you.

Well good job with that. Can you answer my question now, because I asked it after you claimed there were "many." Not "greater than zero."

I'm not being intentionally obtuse. I'm going to need you to clarify in what way you think this collapse resembles an intentional demolition other than "it fell down." That is the only similarity I see.

You don't say.

I'm not interested. I asked you to provide one example that you think demonstrates your point best and we can look at it to determine the details. That seems fair, doesn't it? If you want to provide an example to support your idea, feel free. I'm not going to do that for you.

You haven't invested any work. You've simply misinterpreted the NIST report and claimed there are many examples that prove your point and then not provided one when asked.

Yeah, that's because this topic was dispatched decades ago and it's frankly ridiculous to still be having the conversation.

cool were you guys able to identify where/when 2p2's collapse began?

In fact, as I remember from my conversations seriously like a decade ago, that was the whole reasons the simulations looked different - they didn't bother incorporating the building's damage (which was not completely mapped and would've required a lot of assumptions). The simulations were exclusively based on the fire/heat damage which was still sufficient to cause failure - and that was the entire point of them. They were not meant to exactly replicate the collapse, only to demonstrate that collapse was inevitable.

In other words, you neither understand what NIST was trying to do nor are you interpreting it correctly.

Add in a healthy dose of just straight up lying about what it says ("ordinary office fires!") and you should be able to see why serious people don't waste their time with this.