Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jake

WTC 7 (merged with H)

Recommended Posts

been here before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boof
4 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

edce5b4f-f64f-4a60-9ebe-6bbe0197af01_1.e

 

2 hours ago, Dino Velvet said:

Important findings my arse. 

 

 

:interehjrling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

 

 

 

IMG_20190910_171941.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
3 hours ago, Dino Velvet said:

Important findings my arse. 

This studies findings are available to scrutiny.

Nists computer modelling is not it would seem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone

I'm not convinced about the Big Bang theory tbh. Can't get my head around there being nothing then something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alfajambo
15 hours ago, jake said:

This studies findings are available to scrutiny.

Nists computer modelling is not it would seem.

 

 

Jake, a non-consensus view is not tolerated by adherents to the consensus view even if the opposing view is backed by evidence and fact.

It has been obvious too many in the scientific community that the conclusory NIST findings regarding WTC7 collapse were clearly unreliable.

 

The summary and conclusion to this latest report reads:

 

“It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any

progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately

2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.”

 

A link to the pdf for the draft report is given below.

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by alfajambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dino Velvet
13 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

I'm not convinced about the Big Bang theory tbh. Can't get my head around there being nothing then something. 

 

I’m not convinced either but 12 seasons obviously meant it was popular 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
4 hours ago, alfajambo said:

Jake, a non-consensus view is not tolerated by adherents to the consensus view even if the opposing view is backed by evidence and fact.

It has been obvious too many in the scientific community that the conclusory NIST findings regarding WTC7 collapse were clearly unreliable.

 

The summary and conclusion to this latest report reads:

 

“It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any

progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately

2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.”

 

A link to the pdf for the draft report is given below.

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is hardly any reporting of it which is strange.

Especially considering they ran 4000 computer simulations and not one produced the result of the NIST report.

Which is not available .

Apparent safety issues is their reasoning.

That we were pushed to conflict with the dubious evidence should as architects and engineers for truth ask for mean a public enquiry at the very least.

Quite apart from the murder of over 3000 US civilians.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban

The CIA can't even take Trump out. And some loonies on here think they did this evil act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bn jambo

I'm going to regret this but, what would be the point of intentionally demolishing that building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
9 hours ago, alfajambo said:

Jake, a non-consensus view is not tolerated by adherents to the consensus view even if the opposing view is backed by evidence and fact.

 

 

Speaking as an atheist, I know exactly what you mean. :thumb:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

The CIA can't even take Trump out. And some loonies on here think they did this evil act.

The only loony who has mentioned the CIA is you old chap.

🙂 

 

Taken on it's own merit this report has run 4000 computer simulations.

Not one resulted in what  happened to wtc7.

It at least calls into question the NIST report.

Your CIA and Trump assassination analogy i.

What's that all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

More theories which are not conspiracy ones which also do not validate the Nist report.

This is aluminium reacting with water that was on channel 5.

These scientists do not believe in any conspiracy but they knew from the off that the NIST report could not be right.

 

That may explain the twin towers but not WTC7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

Shocked to find Jake nashing around in full pencils up the hooter mode.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Shocked to find Jake nashing around in full pencils up the hooter mode.    

I didnt and dont believe the official report .

These people who question the Nist report are not all conspiracy theorists.

The study in the OP is open to scrutiny.

 

But anyway too many people believed the NIST report and labelled anyone who questioned it.

You still are .

 

Not really pencil up the nose stuff now is it ?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
5 minutes ago, jake said:

I didnt and dont believe the official report .

These people who question the Nist report are not all conspiracy theorists.

The study in the OP is open to scrutiny.

 

But anyway too many people believed the NIST report and labelled anyone who questioned it.

You still are .

 

Not really pencil up the nose stuff now is it ?

 

 

 

 

Right.     You were a sceptic re the Salisbury nerve agent attack?     Amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Right.     You were a sceptic re the Salisbury nerve agent attack?     Amirite?

Yes.

 

This isn't about me though.

This is about a nuclear physicist and a chemist.

Both of whom do not believe there was a conspiracy but knew the NIST report did not stand up.

The missing evidence that they cite for the twin towers was the effect of heated aluminium.

 

 

The op is about computer modelling .

It is research open to scrutiny.

4000 times it was simulated.

Office fires they conclude could not have brought down wtc7 .

 

NIST own contributors said they were set up to fail.

Underfunded and blocked by Federal agencies you have to wonder at the lack of a proper government enquiry.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alfajambo
4 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Speaking as an atheist, I know exactly what you mean. :thumb:

 

 

I know that you know that I know that you know that I knew that you knew that I know that you knew too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
4 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

Speaking as an atheist, I know exactly what you mean. :thumb:

 

:rofl:

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
4 hours ago, alfajambo said:

I know that you know that I know that you know that I knew that you knew that I know that you knew too.

 

I knew that you would know.  Yon evidence stuff, eh!

 

And facts.  Meh.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen Muddie
On 10/09/2019 at 19:52, AlphonseCapone said:

I'm not convinced about the Big Bang theory tbh. Can't get my head around there being nothing then something

If you don't understand the big bang, you don't need to. You only need to believe in it. Like fiat currency, or God.

16 hours ago, bn jambo said:

I'm going to regret this but, what would be the point of intentionally demolishing that building?

I reckon a plane was meant to hit it but they'd already rigged it with thermate explosives, so they just triggered it thinking nobody would notice in the panic and then they could just control the narrative for the masses thereafter. Maybe it did just fall down on its own though and maybe the unquestioning public are right. The point was to wage wars, backed - not opposed like prior - by the public, harvest information, and control through fear.

9 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Right.     You were a sceptic re the Salisbury nerve agent attack?     Amirite?

I don't trust anyone who wasn't sceptical of that. 

Here's a BBC breaking report live from Manhattan on 11/9/01... Have a look behind the reporter, you'll clearly see Tower 7 standing. The only issue for me is the fact they're reporting it as down 20 mins before it "fell" - read "was detonated".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqP8moItcc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bn jambo
1 hour ago, Stephen Muddie said:

The point was to wage wars, backed - not opposed like prior - by the public, harvest information, and control through fear.

 

My question was specific to that building, What would be the point in bringing down that WTC7 specifically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alfajambo
5 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I knew that you would know.  Yon evidence stuff, eh!

 

And facts.  Meh.

 

 

What I am saying is this; If it’s the agented paradigm that is challenged then you won’t have the right to another opinion - not without being vilified verbally by those who reiterate the paradigm narrative - This irrespective of the legitimacy of one’s claim presented.

 

You are old school, wise and gracious in reply even to individuals you diametrically and fundamentally refute. However, in today’s digitally radiated air your action is uncommon.

 

Step down one and we view ignorant ignoramuses who hold a micro-molecular knowledge base inserting self-inflated rhetorical opinion dispelled out expertly on every subject – This, designed to cut down and slay every dissenting mutineer. This is their truth and fact and breath, but their sword is a blunt one.

 

DA Carson writes in his book ‘The Intolerance of Tolerance –

 

“Neither the old tolerance nor the new is an intellectual position; rather, each is a social response. The old tolerance is the willingness to put up with, allow, or endure people and ideas with whom we disagree; in its purest form, the new tolerance is the social commitment to treat all ideas and people as equally right, save for those people who disagree with this view of tolerance.

Advocates of the new tolerance sacrifice wisdom and principle in support of just one supreme good: upholding their view of tolerance. So those who uphold and practice the older tolerance, enmeshed as they inevitably are in some value system, are written off as intolerant. Thus banished, they no longer deserve a place at the table.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychedelicropcircle
19 hours ago, bn jambo said:

I'm going to regret this but, what would be the point of intentionally demolishing that building?

:profit:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
4 hours ago, Stephen Muddie said:

If you don't understand the big bang, you don't need to. You only need to believe in it. Like fiat currency, or God.

I reckon a plane was meant to hit it but they'd already rigged it with thermate explosives, so they just triggered it thinking nobody would notice in the panic and then they could just control the narrative for the masses thereafter. Maybe it did just fall down on its own though and maybe the unquestioning public are right. The point was to wage wars, backed - not opposed like prior - by the public, harvest information, and control through fear.

I don't trust anyone who wasn't sceptical of that. 

Here's a BBC breaking report live from Manhattan on 11/9/01... Have a look behind the reporter, you'll clearly see Tower 7 standing. The only issue for me is the fact they're reporting it as down 20 mins before it "fell" - read "was detonated".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqP8moItcc

 

Remember seeing that video sometime after the attacks.

Has it ever been explained why the BBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
4 hours ago, bn jambo said:

 

My question was specific to that building, What would be the point in bringing down that WTC7 specifically?

Should we not start with how the building fell ?

Because the official report is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Remember seeing that video sometime after the attacks.

Has it ever been explained why the BBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did?

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html 

 

https://youtu.be/f0HPqd8dPeE 

 

 

 

Edited by jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
5 hours ago, alfajambo said:

What I am saying is this; If it’s the agented paradigm that is challenged then you won’t have the right to another opinion - not without being vilified verbally by those who reiterate the paradigm narrative - This irrespective of the legitimacy of one’s claim presented.

 

You are old school, wise and gracious in reply even to individuals you diametrically and fundamentally refute. However, in today’s digitally radiated air your action is uncommon.

 

Step down one and we view ignorant ignoramuses who hold a micro-molecular knowledge base inserting self-inflated rhetorical opinion dispelled out expertly on every subject – This, designed to cut down and slay every dissenting mutineer. This is their truth and fact and breath, but their sword is a blunt one.

 

DA Carson writes in his book ‘The Intolerance of Tolerance –

 

“Neither the old tolerance nor the new is an intellectual position; rather, each is a social response. The old tolerance is the willingness to put up with, allow, or endure people and ideas with whom we disagree; in its purest form, the new tolerance is the social commitment to treat all ideas and people as equally right, save for those people who disagree with this view of tolerance.

Advocates of the new tolerance sacrifice wisdom and principle in support of just one supreme good: upholding their view of tolerance. So those who uphold and practice the older tolerance, enmeshed as they inevitably are in some value system, are written off as intolerant. Thus banished, they no longer deserve a place at the table.”

 

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.  I see what you mean, especially on your first paragraph.

 

As for the topic of what caused the collapse of WTC 7, I have no opinion.  But if the government (or its agencies) are lying, it won't be the first time they've lied and it won't be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bn jambo
2 hours ago, jake said:

Should we not start with how the building fell ?

Because the official report is impossible.

The fact is it fell, I'm not a structural engineer so i have no idea what is possible and not in relation to that.

My question was, what would be the point of bringing that building down, if indeed it was brought down rather than fell down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
3 hours ago, bn jambo said:

The fact is it fell, I'm not a structural engineer so i have no idea what is possible and not in relation to that.

My question was, what would be the point of bringing that building down, if indeed it was brought down rather than fell down?

I dont know.

There are lots of theories.

Disproving the official report should result in a public inquiry if there is such a thing in the US.

 

I cant help you on the why .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
5 hours ago, jake said:

 

One of the comments sums it up perfectly, that that article isn't in any way an explaination.

 

Someone must have told the BBC that WTC 7 had collapsed, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that nobody in their New York office knew which building WTC 7 was, after all there was a lot of confusion that day, however when it did collapse, possibly right in front of their eyes, then they would have known for certain which building WTC 7 was, and surely somebody at the BBC would have realised that they had made a mistake in reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed 20 minutes early, yet nobody thought to correct the mistake but issuing a statement saying something like, we had been told that WTC 7 was in imminent threat of collapse, but we had reported that it had already collapsed, this report was wrong and was in error. 

I know that some people would still see a conspiracy if the BBC had admitted that they had made a mistake, but that article does nothing to dispel the conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...