To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm. Sure. Ok.
Back to the points you've missed now.

What's the alternative explanation for the passport?

Why did they place a passport in the wreckage?
What benefit did it bring them?
Why would they do if it would be obviously fake and convince no one?
Why, if they had to do it, could they not add some scratches and weathering to make it look more convincing?

Who placed it there?
Under who's orders?
When and where?

Many ..many million dollar questions ... I still find it suspicious that an intact passports from one of the hijackers is found drenched in jet fuel even before the first tower fell ... forgive me for being skeptical

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No he didn't. The truth movement looked for someone who had the background and expertise to do an independent study of WTC7 collapse. Dr Hulsey was never involved in truth movement prior to taking on this study. He was contacted and he turned it down numerous times because he was too busy.

If he already believed that fire was not the cause of the building collapse then he has started his study with a biased outlook

weisses wrote: »

Many ..many million dollar questions ... I still find it suspicious that an intact passports from one of the hijackers is found drenched in jet fuel even before the first tower fell ... forgive me for being skeptical

Ok, I know you don't believe the real explanation. We have established this.
Great.

Now please detail the alternative.

Why did they place a passport in the wreckage?
What benefit did it bring them?
Why would they do if it would be obviously fake and convince no one?
Why, if they had to do it, could they not add some scratches and weathering to make it look more convincing?

Who placed it there?
Under who's orders?
When and where?

If you can't answer them, please say so so we can move on.

King Mob wrote: »

You have earlier accused them of publishing a fraudulent paper.

I said it was not a peer review paper of WTC7 collapse, like you or Dohnjoe or someone else claimed.

ASCE was involved in investigating the 9/11 collapse for the US government, also. NIST handing a paper to a group who was involved in the investigation with them is not independent. NIST never released a single peer review paper of WTC7 collapse for independent review.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, I know you don't believe the real explanation. We have established this.
Great.

Now please detail the alternative.

Why did they place a passport in the wreckage?
What benefit did it bring them?
Why would they do if it would be obviously fake and convince no one?
Why, if they had to do it, could they not add some scratches and weathering to make it look more convincing?

Who placed it there?
Under who's orders?
When and where?

If you can't answer them, please say so so we can move on.

Silly question so yes please ... move on .... I already did

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If he already believed that fire was not the cause of the building collapse then he has started his study with a biased outlook

That false he set out to see if fires did bring down the building. He would not be at this for 4 years if he thought originally fires could not have.

He looked at different scenarios different from fire and controlled demolition.

weisses wrote: »

Silly question so yes please ... move on .... I already did

Ok, you can't answer them.

Why are they silly exactly?

weisses wrote: »

Why are you worried ... NIST predefined goal was to prove fire brought down building 7 ... you believe NIST so you should have no worries believing Hulsey ...right

The difference is though Dr Hulsey was able to replicate the actual collapse. NIST did not.

When we see Dr Hulsey computer simulation side by side with NIST model that's when people will see what actually happened.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, you can't answer them.

Why are they silly exactly?

No I cannot answer who placed them there under who's orders no ... as I said , silly questions ....

weisses wrote: »

No I cannot answer who placed them there under who's orders no ... as I said , silly questions ....

Ok, But I asked you several other questions that do not require you to have insider knowledge or do any actual investigation.

Why did they place a passport in the wreckage?
What benefit did it bring them?
Why would they do if it would be obviously fake and convince no one?
Why, if they had to do it, could they not add some scratches and weathering to make it look more convincing?

Can you not answer these?
Why not?

What is silly about them exactly?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said it was not a peer review paper of WTC7 collapse, like you or Dohnjoe or someone else claimed.

ASCE was involved in investigating the 9/11 collapse for the US government, also. NIST handing a paper to a group who was involved in the investigation with them is not independent. NIST never released a single peer review paper of WTC7 collapse for independent review.

Here you go, knock yourself out.

https://amp-reddit-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQGCAEoAVgB

So I was just over in /r/911truth and, during the course of a conversation, I took it upon myself to, once and for all, create a master list of the peer reviewed literature that supports NIST's WTC 7 methodologies and conclusions. Since it'll likely just get buried and ignored over there, I thought I'd spiff it up a bit and post it here for posterity as well.

First, many are not aware of this, but NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world:http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

Second, NIST's findings re the collapse initiation of WTC 7 were all corroborated under oath by several preeminent experts (e.g., Guy Nordenson, Joseph P. Colaco, and Jose Torero) who independently created and analyzed their own collapse model at Edinburgh University: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/doc/11-4403_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

The testimony of those experts is of special salience because Aegis Insurance, the plaintiff that retained them, was liable for hundreds of millions of dollars could it not present the strongest possible case as to negligence on the part of 7 WTCo., Tishman, and other related parties. In other words, it had every possible incentive to argue that there were controlled demolition devices used (which, if proven true, would far exceed the standard for negligence). Yet it's experts simply confirmed what NIST had concluded re a fire-induced progressive collapse that initiated at column 79.

EDIT: And here are links to the specific sworn affidavits of those experts:

Torero: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=2010+WL+2019830&rs=WLW14.04&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&mt=208

Nordenson: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=2010+WL+2019835+&rs=WLW14.04&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&mt=208

Mowrer: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=2010+WL+2019834&rs=WLW14.04&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&mt=208

Colaco: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=2010+WL+2019832&rs=WLW14.04&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&mt=208

Bailey: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=2010+WL+2019831&rs=WLW14.04&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&mt=208

Since there is no copyright on these materials, I'm going to just post full text in the comments.

Third, there have been many, many peer reviewed engineering articles published that directly analyze, draw upon, and confirm or otherwise independently corroborate NIST's methodology and conclusions. Here are links to those that I could find and review in about 3 hours of searching (remember, these are just the papers that include support for NIST's WTC 7 model; there are many, many more that only explicitly support NIST's WTC 1 & 2 collapse hypotheses):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432Xhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).htmlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-arthttp://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xmlhttp://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildingshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459

Also notable is that, in my search for peer reviewed articles that cited to the NIST WTC 7 report, I could not find a single paper that was critical of NIST's methodologies or conclusions. Not even one.

Fourth, there is not a single major professional engineering organization that has spoken out against the NIST report's conclusions and many that have explicitly endorsed it:

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/TechnicalGuides/CommentsonNISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx

The AIA not only explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/letter-aia-president-richard-gage-aia, it explicitly rejected Richard Gage's contrary claims: http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_1.aspx

The ICC has also accepted NIST's conclusions as valid and commenced debate on NIST's recommendations: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx

Stanford's engineering department has also endorsed NIST's conclusions, https://blume.stanford.edu/content/collapse-performance-assessment-steel-framed-buildings-under-fires, and engineers there continue to research based on NIST's findings: https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-engineers-study-911-lessons-how-help-buildings-withstand-threats

And many other prominent structural engineers and building code experts are on record explicitly endorsing NIST's conclusions: http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/080903.asp

In short, the support for NIST's WTC 7 conclusions is incredibly extensive, robust, and nearly universal among actual structural engineers. In contrast, there are ZERO peer reviewed critiques of NIST's WTC 7 report, ZERO PhD structural engineers on record supporting an alternative collapse hypothesis, and ZERO high-rise specialized structural engineers with any level of degree on record supporting an alternative hypothesis. (For example, there are less than 50 members of ae911truth who claim to be structural engineers, none of them claim to be high-rise experts, none of them have PhDs, and less than half of them even have masters degrees: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html.) The support for NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions is thus overwhelming among those qualified to truly evaluated it. If that isn't a scientific consensus,

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Here you go, knock yourself out.

https://amp-reddit-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQGCAEoAVgB

Many of your links don't work.

That guy who posted that needs to do better research.

For example, The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat did not agree with NIST conclusions. They even state so in this pdf. They do accept fire was the cause, but not what NIST claims happened.
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Here you go, knock yourself out.

https://amp-reddit-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQGCAEoAVgB

First 6 links are unveriviable or 404

number 7 states

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79.

Do try and make a proper effort

Knock urself out

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, But I asked you several other questions that do not require you to have insider knowledge or do any actual investigation.

equally silly

weisses wrote: »

equally silly

But why is it silly? What's silly about them? Why can't you answer them? Why would you accept the conspiracy explanation when you can't answer them?
Please explain rather than just dodging them.

weisses wrote: »

First 6 links are unveriviable or 404

number 7 states

Do try and make a proper effort

Knock urself out

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and
subsequent buckling of internal columns.

I love it they claim NIST study is bull****, but then attack truthers for claiming the columns were controlled demolition.

Will the Council step up show us how the floor structures just collapsed from fire?

This is gold.

The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200˚C (am no there was no shear studs on the girder in the NIST study lol

This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550˚C.

The failure of shear studs is surprising (what?) and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element.

Council just confirmed what the truthers have said for years!!
which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility.

King Mob wrote: »

But why is it silly? What's silly about them? Why can't you answer them? Why would you accept the conspiracy explanation when you can't answer them?
Please explain rather than just dodging them.

If you would apply critical thinking and weigh the odds you would conclude finding an intact passport of one of the Hijackers shortly after they plunged their fully fueled boeing into a skyscraper highly unusual thus suspicious.

For the rest I will ignore questions i cannot answer

weisses wrote: »

If you would apply critical thinking and weigh the odds you would conclude finding an intact passport of one of the Hijackers shortly after they plunged their fully fueled boeing into a skyscraper highly unusual thus suspicious.

For the rest I will ignore questions i cannot answer

Just to sum up.
You believe that it is impossible or unlikely that a passport can survive in a plane crash and be found.
(The dozens of other examples of other flammable that were also found are... Fake? More sturdy than a passport? Just don't count?)
You believe that this notion is silly and unbelievable.

However you believe:
The people behind the conspiracy planted or handed in a fake passport for one of the hijackers.
They did this for no discernible reason or benefit.
They didn't seem bothered about how apparently a passport cannot survive, and that by handing it in, it would be a dead give away that there's something fishy.
They also dipped the passport into jetfuel apparently for again, no discernible reason.
But they didn't do anything to said passport to make it seem like it had been through a fire, such as weathering it or even taking a lighter to it for a few seconds. Because... they were lazy I guess?

And you believe that this explanation is somehow more likely or reasonable than the idea that a passport could have survived the crash.

Do you understand why people might have a problem with this?

The odds are entirely in favour of the official story.
If you tried answering some of the question it might make your explanation a bit less silly or unreasonable.
But as you said, you can't answer any of them
Because your explanation is a joke.

Do you believe that all of the documents recovered from the flight are faked as well or is it just this one?

You still haven't explained why my questions are silly or why you cannot answer them.

King Mob wrote: »

Just to sum up.
You believe that it is impossible or unlikely that a passport can survive in a plane crash and be found.
(The dozens of other examples of other flammable that were also found are... Fake? More sturdy than a passport? Just don't count?)
You believe that this notion is silly and unbelievable.

Yes, I find it highly unusual and suspicious

Same as a 47 story skyscraper falling into its own footprint due to office fires, Or a plane flying into the most heavily guarded airspace/building without one frame of an actual plane being visible in evidence. And there are many many more of these examples that makes 9/11 a suspicious event

King Mob wrote: »

So you believe her theory is as viable as your preferred ones.
Ok....

Uhh I never mentioned Dr Wood so what you think or believe is my opinion on her is a figment of your imagination

weisses wrote: »

Yes, I find it highly unusual and suspicious
t

Weisses, I made several other points in that post.
I understand that you don't believe the real story. You have stated this many times. You don't need to keep repeating this.

You however are avoiding the issues with the conspiracy explanation.

You are saying that the real story is unlikely or impossible.

But you have no issue swallowing the conspiracy narrative even though you can't actually make sense of it yourself.
The conspiracy explanation is ridiculous and has the conspirators doing contradictory things for no reason and against all sense.

So, lets delve deeper.
Do you believe that all the paper evidence from the flights were faked, or was it just this one passport?

weisses wrote: »

Uhh I never mentioned Dr Wood so what you think or believe is my opinion on her is a figment of your imagination

Ok, if you say so...
So you reject her space laser theory then? Or do you accept it?

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses, I made several other points in that post.
I understand that you don't believe the real story. You have stated this many times. You don't need to keep repeating this.

Yes ... I find most of them silly and the others i cannot answer

That doesn't mean finding that passport fully intact after the events isn't unusual or suspicious

I did not give any CT spin on it ... other then comparing it to the glass reflection which imo is also very unusual to say the least ..

I moved on

weisses wrote: »

Yes ... I find most of them silly and the others i cannot answer

yes, again you have established this.
I'm asking to detail why they are silly and why you cannot answer them.

Which ones are silly and which can you not answer?

weisses wrote: »

I did not give any CT spin on it

Ok, so if it's impossible for the real explanation to be true, and my summary of the conspiracy angle isn't accurate, what's the alternative?
What's the conspiracy explanation?
If there isn't one, how do you explain the existence of the passport at all?

This would all be so much easier if you actually just directly answered the questions put to you.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, if you say so...

No ..that is fact. ... probably for a reason !

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses, I made several other points in that post.
I understand that you don't believe the real story. You have stated this many times. You don't need to keep repeating this.

You however are avoiding the issues with the conspiracy explanation.

You are saying that the real story is unlikely or impossible.

But you have no issue swallowing the conspiracy narrative even though you can't actually make sense of it yourself.
The conspiracy explanation is ridiculous and has the conspirators doing contradictory things for no reason and against all sense.

So, lets delve deeper.
Do you believe that all the paper evidence from the flights were faked, or was it just this one passport?

Kingmob it's obvious why they would plant a passport.

Oh Look we found a passport belonging to the terrorist who hijacked the plane. They are planting the evidence it was terrorists.

Only 6 of 19 hijackers appear on any sort of video. The US government released only two airport videos.

5 guys who are hijackers who took over flight 77. I see a 6th hijacker in the video but he never been identified as one of them.

Atta and another alleged hijackers were shown on video at an airport in Portland Maine. Not the airport they allegedly hijacked the plane from.

Guess what Atta and one of his bags mysteriously did not make the flight? It contains a will , prayer book., passport, videos how to fly Boeings. Stuff he did not need if he was going to kill himself. It looks like someone was trying to plant stuff to look like it was Al Qaeda who did it.

King Mob wrote: »

yes, again you have established this.
I'm asking to detail why they are silly and why you cannot answer them.

Which ones are silly and which can you not answer?

Ok, so if it's impossible for the real explanation to be true, and my summary of the conspiracy angle isn't accurate, what's the alternative?
What's the conspiracy explanation?
If there isn't one, how do you explain the existence of the passport at all?

This would all be so much easier if you actually just directly answered the questions put to you.

I said to you earlier that I dont do silly .... The questions you asked are just that ... specially in the context I used the example ... Its almost if you want to distract from something

weisses wrote: »

No ..that is fact. ... probably for a reason !

Cool.
So do you believe the space laser theory or not?

Pretty simple question that I don't understand why you are avoiding it.