World Trade Center 7 and the NIST Report

[wildbilln864]

Well, I was right on one account - the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) has finally released, after nearly 7 years, its finest work of fiction to date concerning the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. For those not familiar with the NIST, it is a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. The mission of the NIST is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by enhancing science and technology that improve and enhance the quality of life. It is also the obsequious branch of the Bush administration that manufactures lies to cover Bush’s engineering of the greatest crime in the 21st century committed against U.S. citizens by their own government. Many of us who watched the events of September 11, 2001 unfold on television remember seeing the smoking structure of WTC 7 in the background. There were no raging fires, only random plumes of smoke coming from smoldering debris and spot fires in the building. The collapse of WTC 7 is the first time in recorded history that spot fires destroyed a 47 story steel skyscraper. The NIST claims that the destruction of the North and South Towers severed a water main that supplied the fire protection system in WTC 7. One salient feature of the report dispels the myth that the diesel fuel, stored in WTC 7, for back-up power generators, provided the propellant necessary to make the fires more intense.


For those of us with an engineering or physics background this juvenile explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 is pure fiction. What bothers me more than anything else is the symmetrical collapse of the building at nearly free-fall speed. Again, we see a common thread in all of the collapses of that day – the main supporting steel columns, some of them massive, gave absolutely no resistance to the collapse of the respective buildings. For WTC 7, this implies that all 25 central steel columns and 58 peripheral steel columns failed within 1 second of each other. The building collapsed in a symmetrical fashion and the debris field was contained to the building’s own footprint, ostensibly, to minimize any damage to peripheral structures. If the building were truly brought down by a raging fire that weakened all of the steel columns, physical science and common sense would dictate an asymmetrical collapse of the structure. In other words, the law of conservation of momentum would cause the side of the building most damaged by the fires to collapse first, and so on. However, we see a uniform symmetrical collapse that is the epitome for a controlled demolition.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/World-Trade-Center-7-and-t-by-William-Helbig-080823-598.html

[William Seger]

1. Another "truther" very impressed with his own inabilty to comprehend simple stuff

For those of us with an engineering or physics background...
*snip*
In other words, the law of conservation of momentum would cause the side of the building most damaged by the fires to collapse first, and so on.

LOL, the guy contradicts himself, unless by "engineering or physics background" he means, "I've heard the term 'conservation of momentum' somewhere."

Again, we see a common thread in all of the collapses of that day – the main supporting steel columns, some of them massive, gave absolutely no resistance to the collapse of the respective buildings. For WTC 7, this implies that all 25 central steel columns and 58 peripheral steel columns failed within 1 second of each other.

Again we see a common thread in most "truther" arguments: faulty logic applied to faulty information, spread around the web by people who really don't give a fuck if it's idiotic nonsense.

[wildbilln864]

2. William...

again with the put downs based on no foundation. It's getting old. Conservation of momentum is not "idiotic nonsense". At least to those that can understand it. Molten steel isn't either. I know you'll deny it's existence but no matter because there are several qualified witnesses who did indeed witness it. Maybe you should stick to your drawings? You have no real credibility when up against seasoned scientists and experts. Sorry but you convince no one.

[OBenario]

3. When they're not able to answer to arguments...

... they appeal to "kill" the messenger.

I don't understand why this guy is always so nervous, full of name-calling about this.

[wildbilln864]

4. it's his shtick I guess...

attack the messenger, call experts names and ridicule their experience & expertise and pretend he knows more than the actual witnesses that were there. Present specious sophistry and pretend it's fact. Or outright deny the evidence. For a decade now. Still hasn't convinced anyone though.

[William Seger]

5. WTC7 controlled demolition arguments have been answered many times, years ago

LOL, why do "truthers" get so riled up when bullshitters don't get a free pass? You're late to the party, and it's a few years too late for wildbill to pretend that he cares about answers to arguments, but if you think there are valid arguments to make (or if you think there is anything defensible in that ridiculous blog post), go ahead and take your best shot.

[OBenario]

6. William Seger:

You have a misconception of reality and that's crystal clear to anyone reading your posts. You see the world under a binary reduction where everyone must be labeled as a "truther" or a "sane person".

That's bullshit. Reality is much more complex than you seem to think.

I'm not "riled up" - you are. You're already attacking me without any reason. You seem to think everybody MUST agree with you or you have a free pass to insult, harass, attack... why? Who do you think you are? Which kind of authority you believe you have?

You need to relax. Or start visiting a psychiatrist to help you with your anger issues. Start taking some medicine or something.

Really. There's no excuse for your hysterical behavior and your lack of education when dealing with others.

[William Seger]

7. What a pantload

> You're already attacking me without any reason.

LOL, by asking you which WTC 7 controlled demolition arguments you think are unanswered? You call that an attack, then you reply with an actual personal attack. And so soon after jumping into the thread by accusing me of trying to "kill the messenger" because I couldn't answer to arguments?

9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty much just for entertainment these days, so.... THANKS!

Anyway, if you want to talk about WTC 7 controlled demolition theories, let's go. If you want to argue about which one of us needs a psychiatrist, well, okay: It appears to me you have a persecution complex. Your turn.