Where's the NIST Report on Building 7? Dog Ate it or What? nt

[petgoat]

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Yes, the dog ate it.

By now you really should be aware that it's going to be released when it's going to be released.

What, did you put this on your Aug. 1 calendar? To Do Today: whine about no report?

You haven't read the one they have released, why should you care so much about this one?

[petgoat]

2. I read Appendix L. Have you?

"It's going to be released when it's going to be released" seems to me
to reflect a fair amount of "It's none of your damned business when it's
going to be released!" attitude.

Is this the third time, the fourth time, or the fifth time that they
have failed to meet the deadline?

They promised the report in July. Without any explanation, they haven't
performed. That's irresponsible and unprofessional.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. "You haven't read the one they did release." "I read Appendix L!!!"

:rofl:

*pat, pat, pat*

You're cute when you get angry.

[petgoat]

5. The sigificance of Appendix L seems to escape you.

I'm cute ALL the time, and don't need to hear it from you, thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Appendix L is the Interim Report on 7, right?

I didn't even need to look to read that.

My point, cute one, is that you haven't read the report NIST already gave you. I'm glad you picked out a couple of parts here and there to wrap around your confirmation bias. But since you haven't bothered to read their report of the towers, why should your agitation over their release of the 7 report be of concern to them?

[Diane_nyc]

10. Some people may be more concerned about WTC 7 than about the Twin Towers

Remember, NIST's hypothesis is that WTC 7 collapsed solely due to a fire. At the very least, that implies a pretty darned serious design flaw.

Also, when I was more inclined to believe in WTC demolition than I am now, what I then perceived as the best arguments for demolition always seemed to me to be stronger for WTC 7 than for the Twin Towers. So I, for one, have always tended to focus more on WTC 7.

So, it's quite understandable to me that others, too, might have a more urgent concern about WTC 7, whether from the point of view of trying to prove WTC demolition hypotheses or just from the point of view of skyscraper safety and adequacy of building codes.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Which part of my post did you not understand?

The part where Petgoat hasn't read the WTC Towers Final Report?

Or the part where Petgoat's angst about the 7 Report is therefore not worth worrying about?

[Diane_nyc]

22. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217791&mesg_id=217840">Boloboffin wrote:

13. Which part of my post did you not understand?

The part where Petgoat hasn't read the WTC Towers Final Report?

Or the part where Petgoat's angst about the 7 Report is therefore not worth worrying about?

Assuming that the premise is true (that Petgoat hasn't read the WTC Towers Final Report), the conclusion (that Petgoat's concerns about the WTC 7 report are therefore unworthy of being taken seriously) does not follow from the premise.

For example, if a person is more concerned about the collapse of WTC 7 than about the collapse of the Twin Towers in the first place, then the person could legitimately be concerned about the WTC 7 report without having bothered to read all ten thousand pages of NIST's final report on the Twin Towers.

And, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217791&mesg_id=217827">as I pointed out in my previous post, there are legitimate reasons to be more concerned about the collapse of WTC 7 than about the collapse of the Twin Towers.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Time to go back to logic school.

I'm talking about a specific person, Petgoat.

His "concerns" on the Towers are on record. Ample record. No way to equivocate record.

And yet he hasn't read the report.

Your objection to this is silly.

[Diane_nyc]

32. Your conclusion still does not follow from your premise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217791&mesg_id=217862">boloboffin wrote:

I'm talking about a specific person, Petgoat.

His "concerns" on the Towers are on record. Ample record. No way to equivocate record.

And yet he hasn't read the report.

There are, still, any number of reasons why someone, even a person who has voiced lots of concerns about the Twin Towers, might sincerely be more interested in NIST's report on WTC 7 than in NIST's report on the Twin Towers.

For example, what if the person's main concerns about the Twin Towers have to do with the speed and other characteristics of the collapses themselves, as distinct from the initiation of collapse? The mechanisms of the collapses themselves are not discussed in the NIST report, except very briefly. Ditto for concerns about molten metal in the pile, iron-rich spherules, explosions (or explosion-like sounds) heard by eye-witnesses, etc. Hence a person with those primary concerns could hardly be expected to plow through all ten thousand pages of the NIST report on the Twin Towers.

On the other hand, this same person might also have some specific concerns about WTC 7 that are indeed likely to be addressed in NIST's report on WTC 7.

To complete your argument, you would need to mention specific major concerns of PetGoat's that are indeed addressed, in detail, in NIST's report on the Twin Towers.

[Realityhack]

36. To be fair that has been done in the past. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

40. You continue to meet my specific argument with a generalized rebuttal.

It just won't do.

[petgoat]

46. Right. Bolo has no need of logic when he just makes up his facts, nt

[Diane_nyc]

47. I told you what would be necessary to make your specific argument complete.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217791&mesg_id=217877">I wrote, in my most recent post:

To complete your argument, you would need to mention specific major concerns of PetGoat's that are indeed addressed, in detail, in NIST's report on the Twin Towers.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. That is total bullshit, Diane.

The only thing necessary for my argument is Petgoat's opinion of the first report.

[Diane_nyc]

50. Depends om the REASONS for PetGoat's opinion of the NIST report on the Twin Towers.

For example, if PetGoat's low opinion of the NIST report is based primarily on an uncritical acceptance of other people's misrepresentations of the NIST Report's actual contents, then the specific issues on which PetGoat has done so would be what's needed in order to complete your argument.

On the other hand, if PetGoat's low opinion of the NIST report is based primarily on what PetGoat considers to be important matters that the NIST Report does not discuss, then, again, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The WTC 7 report could still, conceivably, discuss matters of genuine interest to PetGoat.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. NO, IT DOES NOT.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

My POINT is that Petgoat's objections are of no use in accelerating the 7 Report because he couldn't be bothered to read the FIRST ONE. Why the fuck should NIST care about what Petgoat thinks? He couldn't be bothered to read the first report AND THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN ACCELERATE THE RELEASE OF THE 7 REPORT.

GOD FUCKING DAMN IT.

This is the last time I'm responding to you on this. ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. Quit Hijacking This Thread... Quit Attacking Petgoat

This thread is about the NIST WTC 7 Report, it is not, NOT, about petgoat, nor is it about the Twin Towers and what petgoat thinks of them...

Please stick to the *specific* content/topic

[AZCat]

60. Unfortunately the reason is far more simple.

As it appears to me, petgoat is simply too fucking lazy to read the NIST WTC Tower reports. Instead, he'd much rather snipe at it from a position of ignorance (something with which he seems well acquainted). He wouldn't know which issues the NIST report doesn't discuss, because he's never bothered to find out what it does discuss. There are threads here where petgoat has had questions that were answered in the report or where he has made claims about its contents that were easily checked (and refuted, once someone did so). He has displayed a woeful reluctance to do even the simplest research.

The crux of this is simple: if such a "researcher" refuses to examine one of the primary documents central to the issues at hand, why should we think he will be any more willing to read the NIST WTC 7 report? This thread smacks of flame-bait rather than a genuine interest in the progress of the NIST investigation.

[Diane_nyc]

61. The above isn't "far more simple" than what I said Boloboffin needed to complete his argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217791&mesg_id=217962">AZCat wrote that Petgoat "has made claims about its contents that were easily checked (and refuted, once someone did so)."

That, right there, is a far more substantive criticism of Petgoat's approach than anything Boloboffin said in the entire preceding sub-thread. It is precisely the sort of additional point that I said Boloboffin needed to complete his argument. The only thing still lacking, in what you said above, is a mention of the specific issues on which you claim that Petgoat has misrepresented the NIST report.

But it would seem that Boloboffin is "too fucking lazy" (borrowing a phrase from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217791&mesg_id=217962">AZCat's post) to make substantive criticisms, preferring instead just to hurl, and repeat, logically incomplete insults.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

70. boloboffin understands petgoat's perpetual ignorance.

That's all that really matters. petgoat refuses to read the very fucking report he criticizes, making pretty much everything he has to say about it worthless. There's no point in discussing his criticisms. There's no real point to this thread, other than flamebait.

[petgoat]

63. NIST has not discussed the collapse mechanism, only collapse initiation.

They assume that any collapse initiation (which should have led to a local, partial, and
asymmetrical collapse) would cause total progressive collapse of the building.

They threw out their empirical studies that did not yield the desired results.

They input increasingly unrealistic parameters to their computer models until the models
yielded the desired result.

They did not test for thermrate or explosives.

They ignored the molten steel in the basements.


All this is sufficiently dishonest that I see no need to waste my time reading the report.

They don't even have the intellectual decency to express regret that the steel was destroyed
before experts could examine it.

[AZCat]

67. Nobody gives a shit about your ignorant opinion.

Read the fucking report then maybe we'll have something to talk about.

[petgoat]

68. We already have something to talk about: NIST's extreme dishonesty.

Your only defense of NIST is to attack me.

My unwitting allies only provide evidence for my case.

[AZCat]

69. What the fuck would you know about it?

You haven't read the goddamn report. There is nothing - nothing - you can say in defense of your willful ignorance. Fucking pathetic.

[petgoat]

71. Post 63 tells what I know about it. Try addressing the issues instead of gossiping about me nt

[AZCat]

72. The issue is that you haven't read the fucking report.

All your arguments about the report are irrelevant until you've actually read it (which doesn't seem like it's going to happen anytime soon). What kind of a person expects other people to take seriously his criticisms of a report he hasn't even read?

[petgoat]

73. That's as ridiculous as claiming I can't have an opinion about Iraq unless I've been there,

and don't know anything about drug addiction unless I've been an addict.

Do us all a favor and get an education please, AZ, and learn to think.

[AZCat]

74. Don't be fucking stupid. n/t

[Realityhack]

78. No. Its much more like...

you claiming to have uncovered a key mistake in a report on drug addiction patterns in the US while admitting that you have never read the report in question and have never researched the subject.

You are flat out wrong. If you want to criticize an idea you need to understand what you are actually criticizing. Thus you need to read it. Otherwise you are just criticizing straw men and quotes you (or someone else) mined.

[petgoat]

80. I don't need to read it to know they didn't even try to explain the collapse

or any of the evidence of controlled demolition.

They didn't check for incendiaries (standard fire investigation procedure).

They didn't show how initiation of a local asymmetrical collapse of a lightly-
built upper structure took down the undamaged and more robustly-built structure
below.

They didn't show how an asymmetrical local collapse led to total summetrical
progressive collapse.

They didn't explain the pulverization of the concrete.

They didn't explain the free-fall speed collapse.

They didn't explain the molten metal.

They didn't explain what took down the core.

They ignored all the important issues.

It's as useless to look for answers in there as it is to expect a book
about how the stork brings babies to provide useful information on
contraception.

It's as useless as the 9/11 Commission Report.

[Realityhack]

82. "they didn't even try to explain the collapse" interesting theory n/t

[petgoat]

83. They didn't. By hacking the simulation with exaggerated inputs, they modeled collapse initiation.

They NEVER showed that initiation of a local asymmetrical collapse
in the lightly-built upper floors of the building would tear down
the entire building in a completely symmetrical collapse that somehow
managed to tear down the robust, cross-braced core--a feat that is
comparable to a birds nest demolishing a fence post.

[AZCat]

85. What the fuck would you know about it?

You haven't read the report, you appear to be ignorant about the science of engineering, and you don't seem interested in learning. Why the fuck would anyone care about your ignorant opinion?

[petgoat]

86. In the absence of rational counterargument my opinion would appear to be the truth.

I doubt that your surly argument from an undemonstrated authority fools anybody.

[AZCat]

89. That's some shitty fucking logic.

It matches the rest of your argument, though, so I give you points for consistency.

[petgoat]

90. If any of my points in post 80 are wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate.

But you don't demonstrate. All you do is mutter FUD.

[AZCat]

91. It wouldn't matter if I wrote a fucking paper on each...

you'd still refuse to shift your ignorant stance on any of the issues. I've addressed several of them before, with exactly zero substantial response from you each time.

The problem, petgoat, is the following:
1. You have never demonstrated even passing familiarity with the subjects pertinent to the building collapses
2. You haven't read source materials essential to the discussion
3. You refuse to rectify 1 and 2

Given this, why the fuck should I spend time making arguments that never arrive at their destination? You don't give a shit about anything other than spamming your list of "issues" with a report you've never read. This is absolutely fucking pathetic.

[petgoat]

92. Hey Einstein, IT'S NOT ABOUT ME! It's about post 80. Who cares if I shift my stance?

Why do you want to bicker and bitch at an anonymous internet poster?

The point should be, to prove my ideas wrong in a public forum, for the benefit of
other readers.

Post 80 is a challenge to you and to all defenders of the NIST report. Your inability
to defend it provides just one more reason I see no need to read that pile of crap.

I've been debating neocon idiots for four years now. A standard technique they use is
to claim "All your answers are in this big fat book! No I'm not going to tell you
what those answers are--you have to dig them up yourself." That's your technique.

[AZCat]

93. I'm not Einstein. In case you weren't aware, he's dead.

My motives are mine alone. They are none of your fucking business.

Your "challenge" is about as stupid as the rest of your posts. You can't even get the simplest physics correct.

I don't give a fuck what you think of my "technique". Your pathetic rationalizations for not reading the very fucking report you criticize are damning evidence enough of your lack of sincerity.

[petgoat]

94. Must I read Das Kapital before I express an opinion on Communism?

Must I read "Mein Kampf" before expressing an opinion on Nazism?

My alleged inability to get physics correct has nothing to do with the challenges in post
80, which challenges you seem unable to meet.

[AZCat]

95. Oh yes it does.

Your inability to get simple physics correct has produced a series of intelligible "challenges". You can't even properly formulate your questions!

Fucking pathetic, as is your continued rationalization of your laziness.

[petgoat]

96. My challenges are intelligible. Agreed!

Give it up, AZ, you're totally busted.

[AZCat]

100. That's what happens when you PWI.

More than a couple of drinks and I really struggle.

[William Seger]

97. "Really?"

> "They didn't check for incendiaries (standard fire investigation procedure)."

They didn't check for incendiaries because there was absolutely no rational reason to suspect any incendiaries. The best you'll be able to do here is to insist that they should have checked anyway, because of the irrational reasons that the "truth movement" offers. (That includes such things as the totally unsubstantiated belief that it's even technically possible to perform a "controlled demolition" by cutting vertical columns with thermite.)

> "They didn't show how initiation of a local asymmetrical collapse of a lightly-
built upper structure took down the undamaged and more robustly-built structure
below."

Again, because there was no need to. They provided the most probable initial cause of the collapse, given the rather limited information about what was happening inside the building, and qualified people already understood that global collapse was inevitable after that. You simply don't understand it, which is a rather different thing. But you're simply being disingenuous when you ding them for not including a description of the global collapse in the report, since you have no trouble at all dismissing -- without valid technical reasons -- the explanations offered by other qualified people (e.g. Bazant and Green), in other papers. If those explanations had been included in the report, you'd just dismiss them out-of-hand and then start trying to justify that dismissal with pseudo-technical nonsense. That's not hard to predict since you've already done that with those other papers! But unfortunately, "Petgoat doesn't understand it" is not equal to "it can't happen, so 9/11 was an inside job." You simply look foolish to people who understand very well how it could happen.

> "They didn't show how an asymmetrical local collapse led to total summetrical
progressive collapse."

Since it wasn't "totally symetrical," that doesn't need any explanation. But even if you knock off the hyperbole, you don't seem to have any cogent reason for asserting that it "should" have been less symmetric than it was.

> "They didn't explain the pulverization of the concrete."

I really can't imagine why any rational person would need an explanation for that. What could possibly prevent concrete from being pulverized in that collapse? Why would any rational person think that some sort of imaginary silent explosives were a more likely explanation?

> "They didn't explain the free-fall speed collapse."

And again: that didn't happen, so no explanation is necessary. "Free-fall collapse" is just one of the "truth movement's" favorite lies, and I'm quite sure you know better. It often seems to me that you just don't give a shit about the real truth, presumably because you have a very different agenda.

> "They didn't explain the molten metal."

Molten "metal" is often found after fires, since it happens whenever the temperature of the fire exceeds the melting point of the "metal." What exactly do you think requires explanation? It's already been "explained" to you dozens of times that there is only anecdotal evidence of any "molten metal" anyway, and that "molten metal" does not imply "molten steel." But, again, you don't seem to give a shit; you'll cling to anything that might be useful to sucker a few more unwary people into your "movement."

> "They didn't explain what took down the core."

You're repeating yourself. Gravity took down the whole building, core and all. Gordon Ross is the only "truther" who has ever made any serious attempt to explain why that shouldn't be expected, and he failed. But even he didn't share you silly fantasy about an indestructible core. The core was "massive" because it needed to support a massive load. Fine, up until that same massive load fell on it. Despite your imagination, office buildings are simply not designed to withstand that.

> "They ignored all the important issues."

Yes, your inability to understand the collapse is an "important issue" -- to you -- but your complete unwillingness to even try to understand it -- apparently only because you are totally unwilling to accept any explanation other than "controlled demolition inside job" -- is well worth ignoring. Your willful ignorance is not an "important issue" to me.

Here's the thing: Nobody will ever be able to say with 100% confidence that the NIST report is the "truth" about the building collapses. There are just too many unknowns involved. All that can be said is that, so far, it's the most plausible and most probable explanation, and that may be the best we'll ever do. Your inability (read: unwillingness) to understand it does not really diminish the report's credibility one iota. Either you have a better explanation or you do not -- it's as simple as that. More to the point here, the one and only thing that will ever advance the highly implausible "controlled demolition" hypothesis that you prefer is a true "smoking gun." Until you have that, you really should expect rational people to be unimpressed by your willingness to totally believe a highly implausible hypothesis with no credible evidence. Without that smoking gun, the harder you press to have your extremely weak evidence and illogical arguments accepted, the less rational you appear. Without a smoking gun, your attacks on the NIST report seem to be little more than sour grapes that your "movement" can't come up with a better explanation. Without that smoking gun, the "truth movement" is permanently stuck in the mud, destined to be nothing more than a pathetic footnote in the history of 9/11, regardless of how many people are intentionally misled into accepting unsubstantiated speculation as "truth." In short, with no smoking gun, you are headed for exactly the same future as the JFK conspiracists. But just one true "smoking gun" changes all that, almost immediately. So where is it?

[Realityhack]

99. Your 'points' ring hollow

"they didn't even try to explain the collapse"
Only in your world. They did a fairly good job of explaining the collapse initiation given the information we have. It is possible that someone will find a legitimate criticism of this work and it could be modified. That is what happens when we have less than perfect information.

However, it should be noted that YOU at this point have exactly 0 chance of doing so because you refuse to even fully understand what you are commenting on. You can't say their analysis of XYZ is flawed because you haven't even read the available information on it.

"or any of the evidence of controlled demolition."
What evidence? Their simply isn't any outside of the imaginings of you and a few other unqualified individuals.

"They didn't check for incendiaries (standard fire investigation procedure)."
Why on earth would they do that? Standard fire investigation looks for the source of the fire. We KNOW about the plane crashes. We don't have to look to know there is jet fuel all the fuck over the place.
BTW they DID look at the issue of what combustibles existed where to the degree that they could.

"They didn't show how initiation of a local asymmetrical collapse of a lightly-
built upper structure took down the undamaged and more robustly-built structure
below."
I think you just got an F- in engineering and logic at the same time. You throw around terms like 'lightly-built' and 'more robustly-built' as if they have some absolute meaning.

"They didn't show how an asymmetrical local collapse led to total summetrical
progressive collapse."
Where do you get the term 'totally symmetrical'? I asked you before to clarify that and you failed to answer. Exactly how different can one collapse be on one side of the building vs. the other and qualify as a "petgoat approved, symmetrical collapse"?
As for the progression of the colapse this is the one place where someone might claim you had a *potential* point. Yes one must demonstrate that once the collapse initiates it continues. This was not considered a point of potential dispute. So it is not covered. Other people have covered it and filled in the gaps.

"They didn't explain the pulverization of the concrete."
What?!? Get real. Their job was NOT to explain the debit to your satisfaction. Everyone who matters knows how gravity works, and can do the calculations themselves.

"They didn't explain the free-fall speed collapse."
They didn't explain something that didn't fucking happen? Holly shit, stop the presses. The 9-11 commission is clearly a fraud.
Now the thing here is, I would LIKE to think you are smart enough to know this is bullshit. But then that makes you a liar. So is it dullard or liar?

"They didn't explain the molten metal."
So? Why does NIST care about that? It is post collapse.

"They didn't explain what took down the core."
Right, because they concerned themselves with collapse initiation. Once that started they knew the core would not stand on its own. Again other people have filled in this gap.

"They ignored all the important issues."
Yep. They where concerned with what is important to understanding the building failure from the point of view of preventing them in the future. They completely ignored where the terrorists where from. How dare they! how dare they do what they are supposed to! I am the all mighty petgoat, hear me whimper.

[petgoat]

101. Wow, a double-team snow job!

Full of bluff and bluster and illogic.

Segar tells us "qualified people already understood that global collapse was inevitable"
and makes no effort to explain how they came to understand that or why they didn't show
their calculations and analysis. Hack seems to believe that explaining collapse initiation
is sufficient to explain the collapse. That's silly.

Both claim concrete pulverization is explained by calculations, while failing to consider
that no plausible mechanism can explain it. Ice breaks into chunks, not into powder. Same
with concrete.

Both dispute the free-fall speed collapse, though NIST tells us it was "essentially free fall."

Both poo poo the molten iron, Segar claiming the evidence is only "anecdotal" and hack claiming
the melting happened after the collapse. They're both wrong. Jones has samples from previously
molten iron, and hack has no evidence for his assumption, which is contradicted by the molten metal
pouring out of wtc1.

[Realityhack]

102. Um petgoat...

why would NIST care what happened after the collapse initiation took place? Did you expect them to publish building code recommendations around how a building should behave when the top XX stories collapse onto the rest of the building?

As for 'free fall speeds' You know full well that we are referring to the false statements that the building fell at or faster than free fall. We know it was close. Again why would NIST be concerned about that?

The molten metal flowing from WTC 1 is indeed not currently explained.
As for the molten metal in the rubble. This it can not be determined when any of this metal was heated. We know only some about what it was like in the pile. This is unhelpful in understanding the building failure.

[petgoat]

104. Why ANY honest person would care what took place after collapse initiation:

1. Because conversion of a local, asymmetrical collapse of a lighty-built
upper structure into the total symmetrical collapse of a more heavily built
lower structure is bizarre. It's like someone cut his finger and both arms
fell off.

2. Because the evidence of controlled demolition was all after collapse initiation:

* near free-fall speed
* witnessed explosions
* symmetry
* totality
* complete pulverization of the concrete and of building contents such that only one
file cabinet was recovered
* explosive ejection of building materials
* energetic dust clouds exploding outward and upward

NIST should be concerned about free-fall speeds because it provides no calculations to
demonstrate that there was sufficient potential energy available to dismember and twist
the steel structure, pulverize the concrete, create the dust clouds, and bring the
structure down "essentially in free fall" (NIST's own words).

To claim that the molten iron is irrelevant to the collapse is disingenuous when it is
evidence of the use of incendiaries, and when the sulfidation attack on the steel is,
according to the NYT, "the deepest mystery of all."

[Realityhack]

106. That is far from accurate on so many counts.

"1. Because conversion of a local, asymmetrical collapse of a lighty-built
upper structure into the total symmetrical collapse of a more heavily built
lower structure is bizarre. It's like someone cut his finger and both arms
fell off."
Your statement here shows that you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about in terms of scales. You are essentially being intellectually dishonest because this has been explained to you in detail several times. In addition, the calculations do exist (outside of NIST) to show that this is exactly what you would expect so your finger analogy is just plain bullshit.

None of the 'evidence of controlled demolition' that you provided constitutes valid differential criteria. The same behavior is what we expect of a normal non-CD collapse.

CD is a VERY complicated theory. It involves all kinds of complicated problems. The 'evidence' sited is all over the map and does not support a single coherent CD theory.

For example. You claim the concrete could not have been pulverized by the natural forces involved. So you hypothesize use of explosives.
The problem here is:
1. On what basis do you claim their was not enough energy. Without this calculation their is absolutely no point in discussing this further.
2. Given the above calculation how much additional energy would be needed, of what type, and in what location.
IF you accept that the concrete floor slabs must have been broken up with explosives, then you would be pointing towards explosives (not thermite) in huge quantities distributed all over the place not in a few key locations. You quickly run afoul of a whole mess of problems.

That is just one example. But if you don't have the math to support #1 then you shouldn't use it as an argument for CD.

[petgoat]

108. Thanks for admitting NIST does not provide calculations.

Your statement that all my CD evidence described non-CD collapse behaviors is absurd.
Non-CD collapses do not involve any of the following:

* near free-fall speed
* witnessed explosions
* symmetry
* totality
* complete pulverization of the concrete and of building contents such that only one
file cabinet was recovered
* explosive ejection of building materials
* energetic dust clouds exploding outward and upward

CD theory is very simple: Asymmetric damage and asymmetric fires causes a local
and asymmetric collapse (if any) involving a lot of friction. To bring the building
straight down at new freefall speeds you need to cut all the columns simultaneously.

Jim Hoffman has calculated the energy necessary to create the dust clouds and believes
it to be ten times the available potential energy in the building.


I'll suppose your vague allusions to calculations supporting collapse are to the
Bazant and Seffen nonsense. The assumptions of these papers are so far out of
the realm of reality that they are laughable. The top "block" of the building
in no way resembled a monolithic piledriver capable of remaining intact all the
way to the ground. Video evidence shows that the top block started coming apart
even before the impact zone started to collapse. It's truly unfortunate that
the steel was destroyed without being logged, because the piledriver hypothesis
involved an easily tested prediction that all the top steel would have been in a
neat pile at the top of the debris heap.

Gordon Ross has written a momentum-transfer analysis that shows that collapse should
have been arrested within three floors.

[AZCat]

113. More evidence you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

Not only is your list of "Non-CD" collapse behavior traits wildly amusing, your theories about CD and the various collapse-related papers in your post is a riot. I will be printing this out tomorrow to pass around the office - we need some good laughs (although it probably won't top your "diagrams" of a few months ago).

[petgoat]

115. All you do is mutter FUD, Elmer. No substance. Which of my non-CD traits are CD traits? nt

[AZCat]

119. The question you should be asking is...;

"which of the traits I listed is fucking moronic?"

[AZCat]

111. More bullshit from petgoat, I see.

Don't you worry that posting such obvious mistakes hurts your credibility (what's left of it)?

[petgoat]

116. Would it kill you to name specifics? What obvious mistakes? nt

[AZCat]

121. I don't think it would do any good.

Your stance on this issue appears to be impervious to logic. Other people (including me) have commented on items in this "list" before to no avail. Every item on that list is either wrong or irrelevant. I am impressed that you managed to be so consistent!

[Realityhack]

122. AZCat your avitar is Feynman right?

He fucking rocked!

[AZCat]

123. He did indeed.

He was an amazing human being.

[William Seger]

103. I think you should step back...

... and seriously ask yourself why continuing to support your position requires you to be so disingenuous.

But anyway, we're all anxiously awaiting that "smoking gun" that will save the "truth movement" from ignominy.

[petgoat]

105. The molten iron is a smoking gun.

The iron-rich microspheres are smoking guns.
The unprecedented presence of 1,3, diphenylpropane is a smoking gun.
The sulfidation attack on the steel is a smoking gun.
The explosive dust clouds are a smoking gun.
The pulverization of the concrete is a smoking gun.
The symmetry and totality of the collapses are smoking guns.
The free-fall speed is a smoking gun.
The incomplete, inadequate, and dishonest official reports area smoking gun.
The destruction of the steel is a smoking gun.

[William Seger]

107. In other words...

... you have no idea what the term means?

[AZCat]

112. You must work in the movies...

because a lot of your "smoking guns" are fake.

[petgoat]

114. I doubt anyone gives your fortune cookie missives any weight, AZ. nt

[LARED]

118. Irony, the breakfast of champions -nt

[AZCat]

120. I don't care whether you think other people like my posts.

I don't respect your opinion on a great many things, petgoat, and this is one of them.

[mhatrw]

124. But waving your hand to say you've made a specific argument will! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

128. I have made a specific argument. I'm talking about Petgoat specifically.

With you the argument would be more like, why should the NIST bother with your criticism of their tardiness when they see what a hash you've made of what they did release?

Face it, the only reason you and Petgoat and others are harping on this is because you can't wait to quote mine and cherrypick the report. Why should they be in a rush because you're champing at the bit to do that?

[Ghost in the Machine]

57. Time for you to go back to reading class and learn a little comprehension

This thread is about WTC 7, NOT the Twin Towers. That makes any of your "specific arguments" moot, as they do not pertain to the discussion *at all*.

Whether petgoat cares about the Twin Towers or not doesn't make a damn in this thread. He didn't ask anything about them, did he?

Please try to keep up and follow along in the future. You should also quit hijacking a thread and trying to change the subject of the discussion. The subject of this discussion is the NIST report on WTC 7, it's not about petgoat, nor about the Twin Towers. Please try to stay on topic.....


Thanks,

Ghost

[petgoat]

26. Your logic isn't logical.

It's like saying that since I declined a bite of a rotten apple,
I should therefore have no interest in any apples.

Have you read the NIST report on the towers?

[Realityhack]

28. So you will read the WTC 7 report in full no mater how long? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Bullshit, Petgoat.

Why would you want another apple from someone that sold you a rotten one?

Why would any apple seller worry about your opinion?

That's my point, and all of your huffing and Diane's puffing can't deny it.

[petgoat]

42. Your logic's getting worse. Why would I want another apple?

Because I'm curious to see if it's more rotten, less rotten, or equally as
rotten as the one I already got.

Some of us are curious, bolo, and needn't spend our lives trying to explain
to others why they shouldn't be.

Why would any seller worry about my opinion? Because, as the record shows,
frequently I'm right.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you defend NIST? Tell us that where you
went to school it's common practice to miss deadlines on term papers, and offer
not a word of explanation.

[Realityhack]

43. ROTFLMFAO

"Because, as the record shows, frequently I'm right."

Oh my... Almost fell out of the chair. That was a good one.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. "It's going to be released when it's going to be released"

Some people have a natural lack of intellectual curiosity, others are just flat out government apologists/stooges... the jury is still deliberating on this one...

[Twist_U_Up]

6. Johnny Gross write it Bolo ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501
just askin

[Twist_U_Up]

7. ps

what dog ?

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. Please don't interrupt such a fine government apologist when he's at his best...

... it'll just confuse him more...


Have you ever read such drivel before?

[BeachBaby]

11. The saddest part of all of this....

is that almost 3,000 people died - and subsequently hundreds of thousands more. We want to know who did it - and we want them to pay.

That's ALL I care about. :(

[Ghost in the Machine]

12. I agree... we OWE IT to everyone who died that day to know the 100% TRUTH

about what happened... and who did it. Anything less is unacceptable..

[Bolo Boffin]

14. 19 of them died in the commission of this act

How do you propose that they pay for their crime?

KSM, the executor of this plan, is still awaiting his trial.

Ramzi Yousef, the plan's author, is behind bars.

The other al-Qaeda leaders are in the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have only had their justice delayed because of the idiocy of George Bush. Obama has pledged to get Job #1 back to the head of the line.

So all you care about is getting Obama elected, correct?

[Realityhack]

15. That emotional reaction almost invariably leads to trouble.

I entirely agree with the point that we want justice to be served. As Boloboffin points out many of the perpetrators are behind bars or dead.

And I also agree with further investigation to determine if anyone else helped these people, and to attempt to apprehend the leadership behind the attack.

However, I don't like seeing 'ALL I care about is making them pay' type of statements. One of the conspirators in the Oklahoma City bombings is out of jail. That is how our system of justice works sometimes. I don't believe in the death penalty never mind torture no mater what the person did. That is not 'making them pay' in most peoples books.

The emotional 'get them back for what they did to us' is how you end up with gang/vigilante justice, wars of aggression, collective punishment, torture, no regard for 'collateral damage', etc. etc.
I am sure you do not agree with those concepts (otherwise you are on the wrong forums). But your language is exactly the type that leads to such things. I would suggest being more careful about the emotional content of your speech/writing. I don't think any of us want to contribute to the atmosphere that has lead to such abuses.

[BeachBaby]

17. Emotional reaction?

Maybe I'd better clarify.

This is not about vigilante justice. When I say that I want people to pay for what they've done, it simply means that they should not be out on the streets, living their lives freely, while thousands of people have to live everyday dealing with the loss of their loved one.

Yes, I want them to pay. I want them to not have the right to live their lives in their homes, with their families. I want them removed from mainstream society. I want them locked up until their dying day.

You're telling me I'm WRONG for wanting them to pay the price for what they've done? Is wanting them caught and jailed for life - MY definition of "paying the price" - wrong?

I think you read way too much into my post.

And I agree that I get emotional about it - in my little world, I know several people who are living without a loved one because of 9/11; but if you've ever read my other posts, they aren't of an emotional nature. Just research and questions.

[Realityhack]

20. Perhapse...

But I think my statement stands. IMO we should avoid using terminology like "make them pay" because it supports a natural emotional reaction that has resulted in a lot of bad things over the course of history.

Just saying we should probably try to chose words that better convey what you actually want (justice) rather than say torture which is what some people will think of when they hear "make them pay".

Furthermore, what if someone was brought to trial for involvement and 'got off' on a 'technicality'? They would then be walking the streets (though I suspect not very safely), what then?

[Twist_U_Up]

18. So you see the Bush Administration being compassionate? Like you?

Thats why they haven't really found Usama?

Behind bars and being convicted are 2 totally different things if that matters at all to you.

Being dead is a free pass on investigation?

Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

[Realityhack]

19. You are.

I am for investigation. For trial. I want to see justice done.

I don't think the Bush administration has done an adequate job.

All I am saying is that I think we should try to avoid being too emotional about punishment in all cases. Their is a reason we have laws and judges not victims decide the punishment for a crime. Thats all I was saying.

[Realityhack]

16. I agree (to some extent) with Petgoat...

which I am well aware may be a sign of the end of the universe.

Anyway, I do think the commission should have announced any delay. I understand they are not necessarily appropriately staffed, and they have a complex report to write which needs to be accurate etc. So I understand delays may happen but if you are going to miss a deadline (or even an estimated time of delivery) you should let people know.

[Bassman66]

21. Sucks.

Seven years and we still don't have an explanation for the collapse of WTC7.

I sure hope they got in touch with the unnamed engineer that predicted the collapse to the almost exact minute, it would have saved a lot of time and effort.

[Realityhack]

27. Stop making shit up

They do have a working explanation that is fairly detailed. Clamming they have no explanation is dishonest.

And it has been repeatedly explained to you that the unnamed engineers comments are irrelevant and exactly why.

[petgoat]

29. It would appear that NIST's explanation is not ready for prime time.

Given that they've had almost 7 years, that's pretty close to having no explanation.

You seem to be inclined to be indulgent. I'm tired of waiting.

From what I've seen in Appendix L and in Structure magazine, their explanation is
not going to be believable. Let's get this over with.

[Realityhack]

33. Your mind is closed.

And we all know it from your posts. You wont accept any conclusion you don't like no mater how well researched and documented.
You clearly don't understand enough about engineering to even understand what has been made available so far. I don't think NIST publishing a report will change that.

[mhatrw]

125. Your mind is closed.

Seven years is a hell of long time by any estimation.

[William Seger]

35. Seems to be, it IS "over with" as far as you're concerned

NIST will almost certainly report that the most likely explanation for the collapse is that one or more critical columns failed after sustaining 7 hours of fire, which led to a progressive vertical collapse under the east penthouse, followed by progressive horizontal collapse across the building.

The "truth movement" will insist that isn't possible because that isn't possible, and will expect this "smoking gun argument" to prevail against NIST's experts. Even though the "truth movement" will not be able to produce a single expert who can show in technical, quantitative terms why that isn't possible, the "truth movement" will not accept any explanation other than "inside job." Big deal. All we get out of that is some insight into why "truth movement" should always be enclosed in quotes.

Final score: NIST 1, "truth movement" 0. Game over.

[petgoat]

37. Office fires only burn 20 minutes in one place. How do you get 7 hour fires on massive columns?

Webs on column 79 were five inches thick.

How long do you think a file cabinet and a cubicle can burn?

Obviously you are using your imagination to create the necessary
conditions to make an impossible story plausible.

And then you declare the game is over and won when NIST has gone
absent from the field?

It's easy to see where you're coming from.

[Realityhack]

41. Petgoat this has been explained to you before.

that 20 min in one place creates heat over a large area that is not necessarily burning. That is NIST's answer not mine. I don't have to guess to know that they have a lot better idea what they are doing than you do.

5mm 5in 5ft, it is all relative to load and 'strength'. I don't think you would catch someone who knew what they where talking about siting 'impressive' numbers like "five inches thick" out of context as some kind of argument.

[petgoat]

45. Five Inches Thick is NOT Out of Context

The critical column that was allegedly heat-weakened by "normal office fires"
(said NIST last December) had webs five inches thick, and cheek plates
3" thick welded across the gap between the webs.

[Realityhack]

49. Yes it is... don't you read?

It is out of context because the beam dimensions are meaningless without knowing the material properties and load.

I can yell all day long about how could a X inch Y fail, but without the additional context of the material properties and load it is meaningless.

So Yes, YES it is out of context.

If you want to have us take your ideas about the WTC collapses seriously you are going to need to learn a lot more about the current theories and how such things are analyzed.

[petgoat]

51. You miss the point: a 20-min office fire isn't going to heat an H-beam with 5" webs to failure nt

[Bassman66]

53. 5" webs

That's a lot of steel to melt (or even weaken).

Are the properties of steel different in New York?

[Realityhack]

75. Are we suposed to take you seriously when you ask questions like that? n/t

[Realityhack]

76. They where not heated by only 20min of fire.

stop claiming you have read up on this if you are going to repeatedly intentionally ignore what has already been released on it and explained to you multiple times.

Care to calculate the exact amount of time an office fire would take to weaken that beam to the point of failure without using the load it was under in your calculations.

go ahead. show your work.

[petgoat]

109. NIST did that in the leaked building 7 report, I think. nt

[Diane_nyc]

55. How the fire caused column 79 to fail, according to Arthur Scheuerman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217791&mesg_id=217883">petgoat wrote:

37. Office fires only burn 20 minutes in one place. How do you get 7 hour fires on massive columns?

You seem to be assuming that the allaged failure mechanism for column 79 was massive direct heating of the column itself.

However, in a paper on http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf">The Collapse of Building 7 (PDF), available on the NIST site, Arthur Scheuerman hypothesized that a massive fire on the 12th floor heated the very long horizontal beams supporting floor 13, causing those beams to expand and sag. Then, after the fire on floor 12 went out, Scheuerman says that those already-bent beams cooled and contracted, yanking at the easternmost core columns, such as column 79.

According to Scheuerman, the design flaw was that those horizontal beams were too long, allowing them to contract enough to do damage to the columns once the fire went out.

[Realityhack]

79. Thanks

IIRC NIST was looking at several different possible initiation events.

[petgoat]

81. While the east girder was yanking on column 79, the west girder was

holding it in place.

I guess the east girder had incredibly strong connectors, and the west
girder had incredibly weak ones, huh? And never mind the lateral
stabilizing effect of the floors. They don't exist, right?

But the whole issue is moot, because there is no way the failure of
one column could have propagated laterally to bring the 47 stories
straight down into a neat pile.

[hack89]

84. Why not?

it was a three phase, asymmetrical collapse after all. The initial vertical cleavage of one end damaged every floor - what mechanism do you propose that stopped that collapse from propagating to the remainder of the building?

[petgoat]

87. Connectors fail before columns do. nt

[hack89]

88. Why? In every case? nt

[Realityhack]

98. Please show your work. n/t

[mhatrw]

126. Yep, no need for a report! You have already won!

You can pick up your never ending state of war at the prize counter!

[Bolo Boffin]

127. WTC 7 fell on its own = justification for the war in Iraq?

Who's saying anything like that? Certainly not me. And not anyone in this forum as far as I've read.

[mhatrw]

129. WTC-7 didn't fall on its own means no justification for a state

of never ending warfare.

But, please, keep spending all your time protecting the justification for constant war against all questioning!

[hack89]

130. So the collapse with no loss of life of an obscure office building

was necessary for never ending warfare. Not the WTC, not the Pentagon, not the hijackings but WTC 7. OK. :eyes:

[mhatrw]

131. Where did I say that? What I said is that if WTC-7 did NOT come

down on its own, the justification for the USA's current never ending state of war goes away.

You are smart enough to figure out why, and that's why you spend so much time propping up the official myth even in lieu of any official report.

[AZCat]

132. That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you say.

I know you're not exactly wedded to the truth, but perhaps you should step back and re-examine your claim here. I think with a bit of inspection you'll realize how idiotic it is. I know it's difficult for you to admit error, but do you really think it is better to continue defending such a ridiculous post? Why not just admit it was stupid and we'll forget the whole thing?

[mhatrw]

133. Way to argue using logic!

I wish I could say that your post was the most meaningless drivel you have ever written, but unfortunately, it's not even close.

[AZCat]

134. Sooo.... still supporting this ridiculous claim?

If so, I'm bookmarking this one for posterity. :)

[Bassman66]

52. Still sucks no matter what you say.

7 years and no explanation.

They should have spoke to that unnamed engineer who you so easily dismiss.

He predicted the collapse 5 hours ahead almost to the exact minute.

How much did NIST spend investigating this? All they had to do was ask him.

[Realityhack]

77. WRONG!

That is NOT all they had to do. If I say IBM will go down tomorrow and it does it would be fucking retarded to ask me why and think it was the end all be all answer.

Just because someone said I think it will fall in five hours does NOT mean they know the first thing about what actually brought it down. You have a very tall building, that is burning without intervention, someone says they think it will collapse. Yep, all you have to do is talk to that guy...
On whatever planet you exist on, which is apparently impervious to this being pointed out over and over and over again to you.

[William Seger]

23. They're just trying to drive you crazy

They may have succeeded...

[Bolo Boffin]

25. My sarcasm aside, Petgoat is most assuredly not cute when he's angry.

In fact, when he gets angry, he tends to alienate his once-allies.

[SDuderstadt]

30. I didn't know that he had any alies....

why would smeone be his ally?

[Realityhack]

34. I would say ask X,Y, and Z posters but...

a)Their answers would not make any sense.
b)It would probably break the forum rules.

[petgoat]

38. The guys who think they're refuting me are my greatest allies.

They prove my point better than I ever could.

[Realityhack]

44. Someone proved one of your 'points'?!? Where, when, HOW? n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

31. I'm almost certain they're delaying it....

just to piss you off, Petgoat. Maybe you should cal them and demand an explanation. I'm sure they'll take your call.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

65. welcome to the DU dungeon loslobo.

:hi:

[loslobo]

66. Thanks, Got tired of Huff deleting all my good stuff.

:toast:

[Norrin Radd]

117. They are searching for a ream of that indestructable passport paper to print it on.