A Scientific Theory of the WTC -7 Collapse

[Stanchetalarooni]

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

[SDuderstadt]

1. Same shit...

different day, dude.

[Stanchetalarooni]

2. This was published on Monday 2/14/2011

[SDuderstadt]

3. That would be a different day...

no?

Do you need a definition of "same shit", too? Tell me what's new in that "article".

[LARED]

4. That might actually help nt

[Bonobo]

17. Moronic, small-minded insults. SSDD. nt

[spooked911]

5. Nice, short, balanced

Thanks for posting.

There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,<6> in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,<7> for example. Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise.<8> These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts. Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.<9>

So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. Until now, this has not been done. I strongly urge all scientists and scientifically-oriented individuals to support Scientists For 9/11 Truth (http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/) in calling for an real unbiased scientific investigation of the 9/11 tragedy.

[zappaman]

6. we have already had one scientific investigation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[SDuderstadt]

7. Bunny cage!

The very thought that Spooked believed that could somehow model the collapses is just one more reason no one should take him seriously.

[Ezlivin]

8. Scientists for 911 Truth

Good link. As more scientists and engineers take an unbiased look at the existing evidence and reconstruct the events of that day we can perhaps move forward with a more encompassing investigation.

Kudos to those who are willing to stake their professional reputations on seeking the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

9. How much more of an...

"encompassing investigation" do you think we need? Have you read the reports from the multiple extensive investigations we've already had?

[Ezlivin]

10. Yes.

And I find them deficient.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Bullshit, dude n/t

[Ezlivin]

12. Your opinion is duly noted

Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

13. I'm willing to bet that you did not read...

any of the reports or else you'd offer a more detailed critique than you "find them deficient".

[zappaman]

14. what parts are "deficient"?

please be specific.

[William Seger]

15. Uh-huh

Wow, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, Anders "Heiwa" Bjorkman, David Chandler, A.K. Dewdney, David Griscom, and on and on. Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants. :eyes:

I have a theory about why only a handful of crackpots take these theories seriously, but I don't suppose you'd care to hear it.

[Stanchetalarooni]

16. Probable symmetry of debris distribution.

[William Seger]

18. Yup, that's a good example

... of Gage's ability to pull "facts" out of his ass. All Gage is really saying there is he doesn't believe it because he doesn't believe it, but he's wrapped his "argument from incredulity" in pseudo-scientific horseshit about probability, "proved" by naked assertion. It's a shame you don't appreciate how laughable it is, because humor is the extent of its usefulness.

[Hailtothechimp]

19. Anyone who's ever seen a controlled demolition knows about WTC7

I witnessed a large, coordinated demolition of public housing buildings in Chicago in the late 1990s. What I saw and felt was

1. Loud explosions
2. Vertical fall of materials
3. Enormous dust clouds

The dust clouds on that day blew out across Lake Shore Drive and briefly enveloped an observation area that was set up to view it. Nobody expected there to be that much dust. And everytime I see a picture or video of the building 7 collapse, that's what I notice. The dust.

I know some will pounce all over this and tell me I don't understand things about science. So here's my challenge to you: Explain away the dust. Tell me why any old building collapse will kick up unimaginable clouds of dust, just like the controlled demolition that I saw.

[zappaman]

20. are you postulating that dust only occurs

if there is a collapse caused by a controlled demolition?

[Hailtothechimp]

25. Watch the video of any controlled demolition and you'll see dust.

Watch the video of any collapse of a steel frame building....wait. I forgot that it never happened before September 11, and hasn't happened since then, either. So I guess those videos are much harder to find.

[greyl]

21. Can you explain why there was so much dust before the WTC7 collapsed?

Some clues:

















Before you answer,
enjoy this short quiz:

What is the ratio of dust to smoke in the following picture?

[deconstruct911]

22. How do you think column 20

is consistent with the collapse of the north tower? The antenna??

[greyl]

23. Please don't change the subject until the current one is dealt with. nt

[deconstruct911]

24. Don't mean to subject change but

your question wasn't directed at me and I figured technically the cause of that damage would be related to the subject. In order to simply get your opinion, I will tell you that I believe one cause/primary cause of the smoke was from fire? Does that deal with the "current subject" for now as far as you & I are concerned? Now what feature of the N. Tower collapse do you think caused that damage?

[Hailtothechimp]

26. Looks like smoke to me. The last picture is not New York, either

Cars are driving on the left. Is it London, perhaps?

Whatever faint images you see in your pictures are nothing compared to the dust clouds that kicked up after the demolition occured. Any fair-minded person could admit his.

[greyl]

28. What is the ratio of dust to smoke in the last picture? nt

[AZCat]

27. "If A then B" doesn't imply "If B then A" n/t

[CJvR]

29. Well...

...reporters don't have to know any science and it shows.

Was there any point to that rant other than filling a few column inches?

[zappaman]

30. "reporters don't have to know any science"

Nor, does it seem, do "truthers".