The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Analysis of fire and collapse theories and examination of related evidence.

ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby kawika » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:10 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxG4lYyitsI

Attorneys get to the heart of the matter rapidly.
LIFE!
LIBERTY!!
PROPERTY!!!
kawika
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:38 pm

 

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby SanderO » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:47 pm

kawika wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxG4lYyitsI

Attorneys get to the heart of the matter rapidly.


Yet another attempt to find flaws in the NIST floor 13 column 79 girder 44-79 failure. Where is his explanation of how the collapse DID take place? What WAS the cause? What drove the collapse? Where does he think whatever drove the collapse started? Why no explanation of how it happened?

More of the same Tony sort of attempted debunking joining several others whose names I don't bother to remember.... NIST was wrong... we were lied to... ergo it was a CD, false flag...

Why doesn't he take on the twin towers with a supposed similar cause along with some smashed columns...?????????????????????????
SanderO
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby patriots4truth » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:29 pm

Whether you care for what he and the doctoral/masters students did, the objective remains clear:

https://youtu.be/_7IVCSpalbA?t=412

"Our objectives for this study was to first and foremost at the beginning I said I would probably not be able to tell you what brought this building (WTC7) down but we would focus on what did not bring it down."

zzzz make sense in that anyone worth one's salt already knew the basic results of this study before he conducted it. But considering that fire wasn't the initiating cause of collapse there still is reason to believe some people might look :shock: shocked :shock: if they were suddenly able to quickly digest the gargantuan amount of data necessary to come to that conclusion.

I mean after eliminating a fire ferociously targeting one small area for several hours, the next most realistic collapse initiation is.... :?: :? :?: :shock: controlled demolition?
Perhaps. I haven't seen much support for a different theory.
patriots4truth
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby DGM » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:52 pm

kawika wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxG4lYyitsI

Attorneys get to the heart of the matter rapidly.


Like I always say. If you want to get an answer to an engineering question, gather a few lawyers.

So what's their next step? My guess, beg for more money.
DGM
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby SanderO » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:13 am

He could have studied a fire cause at col 80 on floor 42 and got the same result! This is very impressive...

Now professor.. explain the movements with your engineering and work backwards if you want to find out what drove those movements and what could energize the driver? Or were the multiple drivers and multiple locations? When did Mr Gravity show up and add his two cents? Who invited him to the party?

How bout splainin those corroded webs from the beam they found... analyze why a beam was attacked like that.

Did you get an help from the fire engineers?
SanderO
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby ozeco41 » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:58 am

Nobody seems to have made the obvious comment --- yet.

How come a University Professor is claiming to prove a negative?

AND

Showing ZERO respect for the "Scientific Method"?


It seems to be an endemic problem in academia - the need for publicity at any cost.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby ozeco41 » Tue Sep 13, 2016 2:03 am

A semi-serious question:

would the two PhD's resulting from this project and supervised by this professor be reduced in "marketable value"?

Would both candidates when applying for future jobs need to be coy about identifying who the supervisor was?

I would expect "Yes" to both BUT academic ranking is a funny business.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby Chainsaw » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:54 am

He has sacrificed his students future Careers for purely political gain, the University should end the study, it is worthless.

He went about it backwards, and didn't prove fires could not fail the structure because he left important modeling data out.
That data has to do with point oxidation causing point heating though complex air flow.
It is clear the fires were over simplified ignoring fires complex chemistry, just like Jones and Cole do.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby Chainsaw » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:07 am

We have plenty of evidence of fire.

We don't even have one beam or column with clear evidence of thermite cutting under loading not one.

We have no evidence of explosives at all, the study is thus fallacious.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby Chainsaw » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:55 am

SanderO wrote:He could have studied a fire cause at col 80 on floor 42 and got the same result! This is very impressive...

Now professor.. explain the movements with your engineering and work backwards if you want to find out what drove those movements and what could energize the driver? Or were the multiple drivers and multiple locations? When did Mr Gravity show up and add his two cents? Who invited him to the party?

How bout splainin those corroded webs from the beam they found... analyze why a beam was attacked like that.

Did you get an help from the fire engineers?


A history lesson JSO, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... hp?t=58851
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby Chainsaw » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:14 am

Another good link,http://dsiventures.com/specialty-cooling/sulfur-inhibitor-fluid/

Tons of potential candidates for the sulfur at ground zero.
That's why sulfidication is meaning less. Too many natural sources.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby patriots4truth » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:26 pm

Chainsaw wrote: ...he left important modeling data out...


Did you go over his data? I haven't looked at it. I know he had a variety of results because he tested extremes (like with/without sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) I assume). So when he said fire was not the initiating cause - was he saying that all the results in his confidence interval came to that same conclusion? I guess that first 25 minute video I watched left me with more questions than answers.
patriots4truth
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby Chainsaw » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:01 am

patriots4truth wrote:
Chainsaw wrote: ...he left important modeling data out...


Did you go over his data? I haven't looked at it. I know he had a variety of results because he tested extremes (like with/without sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) I assume). So when he said fire was not the initiating cause - was he saying that all the results in his confidence interval came to that same conclusion? I guess that first 25 minute video I watched left me with more questions than answers.


Do you understand how complex air flow patterns can be in fires?
You almost never have even heating.
The complexity of the fires, especially a chimney effect fire
Would require complex analysis own it's own.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:35 am

patriots4truth wrote:
Chainsaw wrote: ...he left important modeling data out...


Did you go over his data? I haven't looked at it. I know he had a variety of results because he tested extremes (like with/without sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) I assume). So when he said fire was not the initiating cause - was he saying that all the results in his confidence interval came to that same conclusion? I guess that first 25 minute video I watched left me with more questions than answers.

There are fatal errors in the framing of his claim so iMO it is a waste of effort digging into details.

The discussion risks falling for the same trap that "generations" of debunkers have fallen for in discussing - for example - T Szamboti's "Missing Jolt".

Most discussion has tried looking for jolts. And numerous debunkers are committed supporters of Szamboti without even realising it. (They accept the second of Szamboti's two false premises viz: "drop to impact".)

The scenario for the allegedly "missing" jolt never existed. So the arguments are falsified AT THAT POINT and discusing further into details is a waste of effort. As one person's ISF "sig" quotes:
"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest."

(There are several more examples but...)

So back on the Hulsey "claim" which is that fire could not have caused the collapse.

That claim CANNOT be proved absent a counter hypothesis which demonstrates what actually did cause the collapse.

The MOST that Hulsey can prove ist hat he and his colleagues cannot prove what did cause the collapse. AND he can present multiple examples of unsatisfactory partial hypotheses which he has falsified. (Leading to an error of false generalising. BTW THAT error is Tony Szamboti's current false strategy "Look at all these experts that I have proved wrong - THEREFORE I must be right. A mix of false dichotomy and false generalisation.) No matter how many false explanations Hulsey (or Szamboti) can falsify they still haven't proved THEIR claim.

As I stated on JREF/ISF yesterday:
And there is a big difference between:
"We cannot prove it was brought down by fire"

AND

"We cannot explain HOW it was brought down by fire."

AND

"It was NOT brought down by fire"


So have fun discusing as many details as interest you. AFAICS the claim is already falsified.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: ZERO CHANCE WTC7 was brought down by fire

Postby SanderO » Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:29 am

Let's see what the engineering and fire science community think of this study. I suspect not much.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Next



Return to WTC7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred