Creative Speculation
Related: About this forumWhy haven't NIST released the modeling data for building 7?
that they used to create the model of the computer-generated collapse of WTC building 7?
even after a freedom of information request they still refuse to release the data. what are they hiding?
to me that's the smoking gun the collapse of building 7 could not have been caused by fire as described in the official report, and the modeling data would be absolute proof of that which is why they refuse to release it. they will not disclose the data because it is based on fantasy cartoon physics that does not exist in the real world. why else are they hiding it?
the cartoon shows the left side of the building coming down before the first, as if the building were made out of rubber. but the real-life video footage of the collapse shows both sides of the building coming down at once. their ridiculous cartoon looks nothing like the actual collapse. the animation shows an asymmetrical cartoon of the collapse, while they news footage shows it coming down symmetrically. who did they hire to make it looney tunes?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
haele
(13,522 posts)Guliani and other highly positioned political mobsters have a vested interest in keeping what normally went on in Building 7 under wraps. There's more evidence that it had been retrofitted for purposes it was not originally built to support and definitely not up to code by 2001 than there was some sort of secret conspiracy to demolish it on 9/11.
Haele
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)how did he know that?
"We were told the World Trade Center was going to collapse, and it did collapse."
- Rudy Giuliani to Peter Jennings
- In another interview Giuliani denied he ever made that statement. Well the video proves he is a bald-faced liar. The official 9/11 commission report states no one knew the WTC buildings were coming down, another blatant lie. Why make such bald-face lies when the videos prove otherwise?
hack89
(39,179 posts)WTC 7 suffered massive structural damage with a 20 story gouge carved out of one side. Toss in several major fires and no fire fighting water and it's eventual collapse makes a lot of sense.
1. if it was so obvious why did the official report from the 9/11 commission say that no one knew the towers were coming down?
2. why did Giuliani later DENY he said he knew the towers were coming down?
if it was so "obvious" they were coming down why did he have to lie?
hack89
(39,179 posts)Did the FDNY lie about WTC 7?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Everyone there saw WTC1 crush the bottom floors of WTC7, compromising the structure and starting a massive fire which further weakened the structure, and gravity brought the rest of the structure down.
Now, if you want to talk about MIHOP vs LIHOP, I'm into that. 
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)sorry but I prefer facts to opinion. show me the raw data used to construct the computer model. the cartoon animation doesn't prove anything except a cover-up.
the official story says nothing about falling debris as a factor of the collapse. falling debris would not have caused the building to freefall straight down in perfect symmetrical fashion in the manner of controlled demolition.
btw, what's the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP?
if you murder somebody does it matter if you did it yourself or hired somebody (make it happen on purpose). what's the difference? you're just as guilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself, especially when you have something to gain from it. In the case of 9/11 there was no absence of motive. Foreign terrorists could not have caused a building controlled demolition.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Do a fucking search, kiddo. 
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)You proved it? Really? So you have the raw data used by NIST to construct their computer model? So why don't you post a link? Until then you haven't proved anything. An opinion is not a fact.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts) gyroscope
(1,443 posts)"I have proof Trump won the most votes, just do a search."
Theobald
(416 posts)This paper presents the structural analysis approach used and results obtained during the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to model the sequence of fire-induced damage and failures leading to the global collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7). The structural analysis required a two-phased approach to address both the gradual response of the structure to fire before collapse initiation (approximately 4 h) and the rapid response of the structure during the collapse process (approximately 15 s). This paper emphasizes the first phase, a pseudostatic (implicit) analysis that simulated the response of structural elements to fires that spread and grew over several hours and presents key aspects of the second phase, a dynamic (explicit) analysis that used the first-phase damage as initial conditions and simulated the progression of structural failures that resulted in global collapse. The analyses accounted for (1) geometric nonlinearities; (2) temperature-dependent nonlinear materials behavior for both members and connections (including thermal expansion, degradation of stiffness, yield and ultimate strength, and creep); and (3) sequential failure of structural framing and connections. Analysis uncertainty was addressed by determining rational bounds on the complex set of input conditions and by running several multiphase analyses within those bounds. The structural response from each analysis was compared to the observed collapse behavior. This approach allowed evaluation of fire-induced damage, sequential component failures, and progression of component and subsystem failures through global collapse of WTC 7. - See more at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398#sthash.xCvCDZSK.dpuf
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)looks like you also need ASCE membership to download the report, which I do not have.
have you downloaded it? if so, you could post it for us to see.
if not, how do you know the data is there?
Theobald
(416 posts)I showed you where the data is available. A $30 payment to gain access to the data is a nominal fee. You don't have to be an ASCE member to get the data.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)have you downloaded it and seen the data for yourself?
if not then you are making an assumption. an assumption is not a fact.
it says you can buy their analysis of the NIST report for $30.
it doesn't say that analysis includes the raw data and calculations used by NIST, if any.