Are conspiracy theorists wrong about almost everything?

What that's it? You have zero evidence or reasoning. No one denies the damage. It just was not sufficient to explain the bizarre collapse, which again is why NIST did not invoke it.

7 columns damaged only to outer columns and no structural damage to inner columns. Other buildings suffering far greater damage and not falling into there own footprint that you can't explain.

Rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting of steel is evidence.
Freefall collapse spanning 8 stories, Total symmetrical collapse is evidence.
Four year study testing all parameters is evidence. Only one set of parameters could match what happened.

Your just doing the same thing. Inserting your own opinion and speculation like some whack job CT nut. Ignoring research that refutes your claims from both sides of the fence.
I'll repost this as you seem to be ignoring it:


WTC 7 Collapse

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."





Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
 
I read it dozens of times over the years.

It just refers to the NIST report. That you are at odds with.

The latest study refutes it with scientific principles and exposes all the errors of that report conclusively.

You are ignoring my questions with your circular reasoning.
 
I read it dozens of times over the years.

It just refers to the NIST report. That you are at odds with.

The latest study refutes it with scientific principles and exposes all the errors of that report conclusively.

You are ignoring my questions with your circular reasoning.
A NIST source actually quotes the 25% damage figure :D
 
A NIST source actually quotes the 25% damage figure :D
Another loop of circular reasoning. You have some serious blockages in that filter of yours. They do not claim it as the cause! How about the inner core columns? Explain why the other buildings suffering immensely more damage did not collapse. Explain how 8 stories suffered no resistance at all in the collapse? Explain the oxidized sulfidation?

We performed our analysis using many of NIST’s modeling assumptions in order to determine whether NIST’s results were replicable using even the most generous assumptions. However, it is important to understand that most of these assumptions — which were used for the purposes of this analysis — are either invalid or at best questionable. These assumptions and our explanations for why they are invalid (with the exception of the last two) are listed below.

3.1.1 NIST’s Modeling Assumptions Used by UAF Team

1. NIST assumed the east exterior wall to be rigid and not deflect due to the expansion of beams K3004, C3004, B3004, A3004, and G3005, which would cause all thermal expansion of the heated horizontal members to move westward in the direction of Column 79. We found that the exterior of the building was transversely very flexible. Further, we found that the point of zero thermal movement in the plane of the floor was near the elevators, and this alone dramatically affects the expansive movements of the 75 floor framing as temperature rises. In short, there is no basis for assuming the exterior wall to be rigid.

2. NIST assumed that shear studs on beams K3004, C3004, B3004, A3004, and G3005 were broken due to differential thermal movement. We analyzed this phenomena in our previous analyses and found that this would not have occurred.

3. NIST assumed that no shear studs were installed on girder A2001. It was subsequently shown in the Arup and Nordenson reports that girder A2001 did have shear studs.

4. NIST assumed that the bolts fastening girder A2001 to its seats at columns 44 and 79 were broken. We analyzed this phenomena in our previous analyses and found that this would not have occurred.

5. NIST assumed that the thermal expansion of beams to the east of girder A2001 was sufficient to move the girder’s web a significant distance beyond its seat. We needed to increase the coefficient of thermal expansion of the steel used for beams K3004, C3004, B3004, and A3004 by approximately 40% to 11.5 x 10-6 in/in/°F in order to generate sufficient thermal expansion.

6. NIST assumed that the beams were heated to 600°C, that girders A2001 and A2015 were heated to 500°C, and that the columns were heated to 300°C. This was examined in our study and we found no problem with this assumption.

7. NIST assumed that the floor loading was 88 lbs./ft2 . We confirmed this loading.
 
What percentage damage here Malf? You know there is damage and then there is structural damage right?
In all your latest posts you have not advanced a singular thing that has not been addressed over and over again while avoiding all issues that you cannot address.





But let's play the percentage game.

7 outer columns were severed out of 58, leaving all 24 interior core columns intact. Total 82 columns. Percentage of columns damaged by debris = aprox 8.5%

Now check out the other buildings that were devastated by the debris and did not collapse. What percentage here? How ridiculous!

 
Last edited:
What percentage damage here Malf? You know there is damage and then there is structural damage right?


Way to miss the point.

I’ll take a leaf out of Eric’s book and leave this thread to the fruitloops and hayseeds.

I might pop back if you answer Eric’s questions.
 
Way to miss the point.
Look who's talking! Way to miss every point Malf, including the last one. Even the point in the so called official report!

From the NIST report.

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7 the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7."

"Even without the structural damage WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."
 
Last edited:
Malf is a long-time troll on this forum.

He doesn't care about facts or reason. His only goal is to derive sustenance from irritating you. Why waste precious minutes of your life feeding that sickness?

Please don't feed the Trolls.

Click here to greatly improve your forum experience: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/members/malf.7/ignore
That's exactly it - use the ignore feature.
Or just don't read his replies, without using the feature - why not? You are not obliged to waste your time.

Personally, I never use ignore - I don't see a reason to; after all, sometimes I still want to entertain myself by reading Malf's rants. I just don't care about his position - and he is free not to care about mine.
 
Or just don't read his replies, without using the feature - why not? You are not obliged to waste your time.

Personally, I never use ignore - I don't see a reason to; after all, sometimes I still want to entertain myself by reading Malf's rants. I just don't care about his position - and he is free not to care about mine.
I just find my life better (smoother... less dark, less drama ridden) when I consciously choose actions that limit my exposure to certain energies crossing my path.

Folks can also put me on their ignore list and I wouldn't be bothered at all.
 
I saw it as a opportunity to expose the hypocrisy and double standards that come with controversy of the weaponized term conspiracy theory.

911 and in particular WTC 7 is a perfect example. There are thousands of structural engineers on record speaking out and thousands more scientists who have petitioned for a actual investigation. There were two crimes, the event and then the clean up and destruction of evidence.

This is a case that stands on forensic science and logic. There is substantial evidence, and there is no explanation for it other than a pre packaged excuse that is masquerading as science. The 4 year study by a forensic engineer completely and utterly refutes it. It Cleary shows what can clearly be seen to anyone who looks without the taint of emotion and personal bias. That it is what it looks like. Logic refutes it when you do not ignore all of the observables or the witness testimony, and in this case even forensic metallurgy.

And yet know nothing useful idiots with no research at all who ridicule such opinions spill there own disinformation like it is the only truth. It is not actual independent thought.

A adversarial position is taken just because it is outside of the offered up narrative and nothing more. Concepts are planted through media propaganda. You can tell by the language that is used, there are examples in this thread I have not highlighted. But there are phrases and concepts that are not original, they are concepts that are conditioned and are not thought through. It's clear as day.

We can see when pressed how empty such things are and how quickly they logically break down. Here we had someone that was doing exactly what is accused of a conspiracy theorist. Making unsubstantiated assumptions and connecting issues that do not connect while ignoring verifiable evidence to the contrary. Even ignoring what the official excuse outlines. The irony was too sweet to be ignored.

It was my pleasure.
 
Cleary shows what can clearly be seen to anyone who looks without the taint of emotion and personal bias
The ultimate strawman. Accusing other of being tainted by emotion and bias. You're just 100% right and Eric, for example, is 100% wrong with the provided explanation being he's tainted by emotion and bias.

Worth thinking about...
 
I saw it as a opportunity to expose the hypocrisy and double standards that come with controversy of the weaponized term conspiracy theory.

911 and in particular WTC 7 is a perfect example. There are thousands of structural engineers on record speaking out and thousands more scientists who have petitioned for a actual investigation. There were two crimes, the event and then the clean up and destruction of evidence.

This is a case that stands on forensic science and logic. There is substantial evidence, and there is no explanation for it other than a pre packaged excuse that is masquerading as science. The 4 year study by a forensic engineer completely and utterly refutes it. It Cleary shows what can clearly be seen to anyone who looks without the taint of emotion and personal bias. That it is what it looks like. Logic refutes it when you do not ignore all of the observables or the witness testimony, and in this case even forensic metallurgy.

And yet know nothing useful idiots with no research at all who ridicule such opinions spill there own disinformation like it is the only truth. It is not actual independent thought.

A adversarial position is taken just because it is outside of the offered up narrative and nothing more. Concepts are planted through media propaganda. You can tell by the language that is used, there are examples in this thread I have not highlighted. But there are phrases and concepts that are not original, they are concepts that are conditioned and are not thought through. It's clear as day.

We can see when pressed how empty such things are and how quickly they logically break down. Here we had someone that was doing exactly what is accused of a conspiracy theorist. Making unsubstantiated assumptions and connecting issues that do not connect while ignoring verifiable evidence to the contrary. Even ignoring what the official excuse outlines. The irony was too sweet to be ignored.

It was my pleasure.
Brilliant post.

My comfort lies in my own personal definition of the word "karma."

Karma is that which encapsulates one's experience of the forces which generate the peeling off of ignorance…

So, when one exists within the folds of ignorance - especially when one applies willfulness to what they prefer be true or not and that which they wish to be true is, in fact, not… then karmic forces arise whereby their ignorance is revealed to them in such a way they become compelled to extricate themselves from this ignorance... usually after experiencing escalating degrees of unpleasantness (or worse).

I do not "believe" this is true for anyone else but I do operate under the assumption that it is true for me. Knowing I hold this view as an assumption and elevating this assumption to the level of belief, I place myself in the hands of fate founded by whether or not, this assumption may actually be true. I am always on the pathway of "finding out."

I operate assuming it is true for others (but not believing it is true for others). Being conscious of holding an assumption or holding a belief, and the difference between the two is, for me, critically important.

In addition, when I identify a member on a forum as hopelessly ignorant (perhaps willfully, thus double hopelessly), they earned their place on my ignore list. Thanks for this feature, Skeptiko forum!
 
Look who's talking! Way to miss every point Malf, including the last one. Even the point in the so called official report!

From the NIST report.

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7 the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7."

"Even without the structural damage WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."
Eh...I'll regret this, I'm sure, but I'll bite.

I think this is nit picking and, again, context is important. Back in the day I wrote reports and white papers for the government and then came back a couple years later and wondered why I worded something so badly, why I emphasized a weaker over a stronger point, thought it unfortunate that we didn't know then when we do now, etc..

Also, it seems to me this is like a village full of people gets very sick all at once. The government health authorities conclude that the village consumed tainted meat and there was bad water in the well due a bacterial bloom. The combination led to the perfect storm of health threats.

Along comes a conspiracy theorist who, with his own team of health experts, concludes that at that time of year, there is no way that there could be a bacterial bloom in the well. The government lied! There has never been a bacteria polluted well at that time of year in history. The Conspiracy theorists conclude that the Free Masons must have poisoned the well for their secret nefarious purposes! Why, there are Free Mason in government - we can name some! - they must have forced the writing of the misleading report.

What both teams of "experts" missed is that there was bacteria in the well because someone who ate the tainted meat barfed into the well, causing a bacterial infection of the water that wouldn't normally occur under natural circumstances. The government experts were basically correct, but off a little. It happens all of the time.
 
Last edited:
Eh...I'll regret this, I'm sure, but I'll bite.

I think this is nit picking and, again, context is important. Back in the day I wrote reports and white papers for the government and then came back a couple years later and wondered why I worded something so badly, why I emphasized a weaker over a stronger point,
Thanks Eric, I'm getting perhaps 2 main points from your post, the first I have put in bold. Which is a good point and one I had considered as well when investigating this over the years. I think anyway because, well don't take it the wrong way but it is a bit vague.

The answer in context is put in perspective when you understand the hypothesis put forward by NIST. That it was a sequential progressive collapse caused by fires fueled by office furniture. The progression is outlined and does not include the damaged areas of the outer columns until the final stages.

I can see the reasoning in the overall approach because in order to bring a building straight down the inner core columns must precede the failure of the outer columns (where the damage was). This is how it is done in demolition because the inner columns will pull the outer columns inward so the building does not tip and the rubble will pile on top of itself.

Straight away you should begin to see why NIST is not focused on the damage and is really just a passing note in the report as being the initiating event for the fires.

Basically the primary progressive sequence begins with a single girder (believe it or not) a single girder on the n/w corner, that through thermal expansion is pushed of its seat causing some floors to collapse. This in turn puts a overload onto that single inner column it was connected to, and that puts stress on the next column and the next, in that row of the inner columns, these then buckle and fail.

These three columns had the most load because the penthouse had already collapsed above these columns several seconds before the collapse begins.

The failure of these columns then in turn put stress to the next row of three inner columns etc... traveling right across the inner core, that in turn places the stress on the outer columns which bring the building down.

This is quite a basic description but you see that the damaged outer columns have virtually no relevance to the hypothesis and is the very last stage of failure.

As for your other implied point, sorry if I am wrong about this but I think it has something to do with unknowns. Well I don't think the comparison is warranted or relevant. They can't be compared just purely on the notion of "conspiracy theory". This is the mistake of generalization I have been referring to. There absolutely no justifications at all for that conspiracy theory as far I can surmise. Theories were falsified with facts in that case. NIST has been falsified. NIST not only has the weaker point it is scientifically refuted.

The building came down, straight down and there are only a extremely limited number of possibilities to test for due to the nature of the collapse. It is a world wide matter of building codes for safety and safety in all extremes, everything about how these things are put together are known and everything about how to professionally bring them is also known. Look at those other buildings, it is not easy. It is actually quite precise.

The Halsey study attempted to replicate NIST's hypothesis, even though they have refused to release their technical data, the hypothesis was given extremely generous assumptions and every possible means to replicate it and it failed. Even if it could come down that way it would have tipped towards the failure of the initial columns. Which is just obvious even to a non engineer.

The ONLY way to match what happened was with a global simultaneous failure of all internal columns followed by a global simultaneous failure of all outer columns over 8 stories some where below the 16th story. This was the only way to account for the observable phenomena. Witness testimony of explosions and molten steel, even burning steel as well as forensic evidence support the conclusion.

To add, major technical errors where found in the NIST study, they have refused to do corrections, have refused to release the data. They denied freefall then admitted to it but did not change their model. The simulation looks nothing like what happened and does not even show the collapse.

I have done my homework, I do not just buy into things as many people suggest. I suffer from OCD. I spend weeks and sometimes days without sleep researching things that most people do not give a crap about, or are simply satisfied with what the official narrative tells them to think.
 
Last edited:
Top