• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
What was there to burn?
Click to expand...

You don't know, do you?

You have ZERO knowledge at this point beyond what you regurgitate from Truther sites..... If there aren't elevators what do you suppose would be there?

Take a guess.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

I'll let you cogitate on that for a few...
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Initiating Event Hypotheses
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, WTC Investigation
333
Combustible Load
The building tenants were law offices, and brokerage, banking and accounting firms. The fire load was characterized as “heavy” in the USFA Technical Report (Routley 1991) with “heavy wood paneling, heavy wood furniture, and an abundance of office machinery.”
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
What was there to burn?
Click to expand...

The core area contained elevator and HVAC shafts, stairwells, storage rooms, toilets, and various other support facilities. The magnitude of the combustible load in the various core areas was unclear, although it was likely to have been small. As a first approximation, the carpet that was assumed to be spread over the floor of the tenant spaces was extended into the core area. This was not necessarily meant to imply that the core was carpeted, but was to represent some light load of combustible objects that might have been found there.

So... The "no combustibles" is incorrect.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
You don't know, do you?

You have ZERO knowledge at this point beyond what you regurgitate from Truther sites..... If there aren't elevators what do you suppose would be there?

Take a guess.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

I'll let you cogitate on that for a few...
Click to expand...

Hit me with your best shot: What was there in the core structure to feed a fire?

EDIT: Oh wait, you just linked to the government report which said the combustible load in the few storage rooms was small, meaning that there was no way a fire could have a fighting chance of weakening anything.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Hit me with your best shot: What was there in the core structure to feed a fire?

EDIT: Oh wait, you just linked to the government report which said the combustible load in the few storage rooms was small, meaning that there was no way a fire could have a fighting chance of weakening anything.
Click to expand...

Oh, wait... You are moving goalposts....

The original ignorant claim: Annnnnnd there was no flammable material in the core structure.

Blatantly untrue.

Now, is it YOUR contention the combustible material in the core IN COMBINATION WITH THE HEAT RELEASED BY SURROUNDING FIRES are insufficient to cause heat related failure?

Now, given the wide range of ridiculous claims you have made so far a thinking person would take a step back and look at one's resources.....

Quit using TRUTHER sites to draw your opinion from.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
More CLAIMS..... Precious little understanding.

Do you REALLY think the collapse of WTC7 would be silent?

There were rumbles... SO WHAT?

CLUE: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS NOT LOW RUMBLING SOUNDS.....

Your understanding of explosives appears the same as many Truthers.... Comic Book/Hollywood level of understanding.

Now "little bombs" are going off to weaken a structure that showed signs of instability HOURS before....

Where were these "little bombs" and who planted them?

And why didn't the fires set off the "little bombs"?

Do you have ANY clue what preparation goes into a REAL CD?
Click to expand...

Fledermaus, why do YOU think the percussive noises from the building were so much louder than the noise of the entire collapse event?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
Oh, wait... You are moving goalposts....

The original ignorant claim: Annnnnnd there was no flammable material in the core structure.

Blatantly untrue.

Now, is it YOUR contention the combustible material in the core IN COMBINATION WITH THE HEAT RELEASED BY SURROUNDING FIRES are insufficient to cause heat related failure?

Now, given the wide range of ridiculous claims you have made so far a thinking person would take a step back and look at one's resources.....

Quit using TRUTHER sites to draw your opinion from.
Click to expand...

One thing slightly wrong and a whole lot of things right. At least I'm not rationalizing my belief in psychic abilities.

So, do you have any ideas for a specific collapse event starting with weakened core columns? You seem to like that East Penthouse, so I don't see what you're getting at.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
MicahJava,

Why do you suppose practically every fire and engineer related organization believes fire was at fault?
Click to expand...

Depends. What did they read to make them believe that it was fire alone? The fraudulent NIST report or cherry-picked quotes from FDNY members that deviate away from the psychic OEM member that was there that day? Or maybe it's just good old fashioned cognitive dissonance? Like the cognitive dissonance that makes some demolition experts say that WTC 7 did not look like a demolition?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Moderator's Warning:
Please keep in mind which forum this thread is in and the special rulesets under which it is managed, which are spelled out in the two stickied threads at the top of the forum:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ention-new-rules-conspiracy-theory-forum.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...erving-notice-regarding-moderation-forum.html

You all are not the topic of the thread. The personal comments and baiting need to stop now.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Gina said:
Moderator's Warning:
Please keep in mind which forum this thread is in and the special rulesets under which it is managed, which are spelled out in the two stickied threads at the top of the forum:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ention-new-rules-conspiracy-theory-forum.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...erving-notice-regarding-moderation-forum.html

You all are not the topic of the thread. The personal comments and baiting need to stop now.
Click to expand...

Good ideas for a forum like this.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Fledermaus, why do YOU think the percussive noises from the building were so much louder than the noise of the entire collapse event?
Click to expand...

Now they are "percussive noises"?

Quit the rabbit hole digging...

You are getting tedious.

Now we have "percussive noises".

What do "percussive noises" mean to you?

Since we both know there is practically zero evidence of explosives.....
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
One thing slightly wrong and a whole lot of things right. At least I'm not rationalizing my belief in psychic abilities.

So, do you have any ideas for a specific collapse event starting with weakened core columns? You seem to like that East Penthouse, so I don't see what you're getting at.
Click to expand...

No psychic abilities required. This has been explained.

The Eastern Penthouse descended first. Period. That would be the logical thing to look at.

And what caused it? Expansion and contraction (which compromised connectors as well) coupled with general weakening of the steel due to elevated temperatures from the fires.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
Now they are "percussive noises"?

Quit the rabbit hole digging...

You are getting tedious.

Now we have "percussive noises".

What do "percussive noises" mean to you?

Since we both know there is practically zero evidence of explosives.....
Click to expand...


They're whatever you want to call them, but they existed, and they occurred before the East Penthouse dropped, and they were much louder than everything that happened after the East Penthouse dropped. Reminds me of a controlled demolition when the sounds of the explosives are much louder than the structure falling to the ground. With all of the hypotheses on a natural collapse of Building 7 that have been made, I would expect the collapse to get louder after the East Penthouse dropped. Do you disagree?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
They're whatever you want to call them, but they existed, and they occurred before the East Penthouse dropped, and they were much louder than everything that happened after the East Penthouse dropped. Reminds me of a controlled demolition when the sounds of the explosives are much louder than the structure falling to the ground. With all of the hypotheses on a natural collapse of Building 7 that have been made, I would expect the collapse to get louder after the East Penthouse dropped. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd?

Since they weren't explosives why do you believe they are relevant?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Depends. What did they read to make them believe that it was fire alone? The fraudulent NIST report or cherry-picked quotes from FDNY members that deviate away from the psychic OEM member that was there that day? Or maybe it's just good old fashioned cognitive dissonance? Like the cognitive dissonance that makes some demolition experts say that WTC 7 did not look like a demolition?
Click to expand...

Will you quit with the "psychic" nonsense?

What did they read? Probably the various reports and fire and engineering publications that discussed 9/11. All the non-government writings that corroborate the government writings.

And "cognitive dissonance"? Really? Not that canard. No, just no.

Why do you suppose practically every fire and engineer related organization believes fire was at fault?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Good ideas for a forum like this.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
We ask that users do not quote and reply to mod-boxes. If you have questions or comments, please contact a moderator or use the Contact Us button.

Thank you.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Depends. What did they read to make them believe that it was fire alone? The fraudulent NIST report or cherry-picked quotes from FDNY members that deviate away from the psychic OEM member that was there that day? Or maybe it's just good old fashioned cognitive dissonance? Like the cognitive dissonance that makes some demolition experts say that WTC 7 did not look like a demolition?
Click to expand...

Micah,

You do realize there were literally hundreds of papers and pieces written in the years after 9/11 discussing various aspects..... Right?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
No psychic abilities required. This has been explained.
Click to expand...

No human being can simply predict when a skyscraper will collapse from fire. This is such a fundamental fact. If all of the United States knew all of the available information about the foreknowledge of Building 7, you would get a lot more people thinking it was a controlled demolition. There would be people who share your view and there would be people thinking it might just be a wild coincidence, but there would be a lot more people asking questions and there would be a lot more people (including experts) asking for new investigations. Nothing about WTC 7's foreknowledge was normal. When you tried to provide a similar example, you gave one quote from somebody who wasn't even there saying that firefighters were concerned about the structural stability of one small steel-framed building while it was burning. Then you gave a contradicting source saying that the investigators were concerned about the structural stability the morning after the fire. And it didn't even collapse. You said that it doesn't matter that it wasn't a tall building, even though tall steel-framed buildings are a lot stronger than smaller ones. I'm sorry, this does not parallel the amazing display of precise foreknowledge for such an unprecedented event. It doesn't matter if the magic OEM engineer said the conclusion was based on the severity of the fires or the damage from falling debris, he was probably lying. You can bet that bulge didn't do much, either.

The Eastern Penthouse descended first. Period. That would be the logical thing to look at.

And what caused it? Expansion and contraction (which compromised connectors as well) coupled with general weakening of the steel due to elevated temperatures from the fires.
Click to expand...

I explained to you, literally like you were five, evidence that the East Penthouse was not the first sign of collapse. In fact, the sharpprintinginc website provided photographic evidence that the entire building literally rocked slightly about 90 seconds before, and then again six seconds before the East Penthouse dropped: Accurate Collapse History of WTC7 - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research
 
Last edited:
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
Micah,

You do realize there were literally hundreds of papers and pieces written in the years after 9/11 discussing various aspects..... Right?
Click to expand...

And a whole lot of them are known to be wrong. The con-ed substation, the fuel oil tank, the superficial damage from North Tower rubble, early reports of a possible gas leak from Building 7, experts lying to our faces on television that Building 7 did not fall at freefall...
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
Will you quit with the "psychic" nonsense?
Click to expand...

Nope.



What did they read? Probably the various reports and fire and engineering publications that discussed 9/11. All the non-government writings that corroborate the government writings.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the official verdicts on the collapse of WTC 7 changed over time and it will probably continue to change in the future. If the supreme government-endorsed scientific literature on how Building 7 collapsed has been shown to be fraudulent, what can you trust? Do you think that the experts who rubber-stamped the NIST WTC 7 reports knew that they omitted important elements to the Building in their computer model? Or that their computer model for the fires don't match the photographic evidence? Or any of the million reasons why it is simply wrong?

And "cognitive dissonance"? Really? Not that canard. No, just no.
Click to expand...

What are your reasons for thinking that WTC 7 didn't look like a demolition at all?

Why do you suppose practically every fire and engineer related organization believes fire was at fault?
Click to expand...

AE911TRUTH doesn't, and it's partially because they examined the issues raised above.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
No human being can simply predict when a skyscraper will collapse from fire. This is such a fundamental fact. If all of the United States knew all of the available information about the foreknowledge of Building 7, you would get a lot more people thinking it was a controlled demolition. There would be people who share your view and there would be people thinking it might just be a wild coincidence, but there would be a lot more people asking questions and there would be a lot more people (including experts) asking for new investigations. Nothing about WTC 7's foreknowledge was normal. When you tried to provide a similar example, you gave one quote from somebody who wasn't even there saying that firefighters were concerned about the structural stability of one small steel-framed building. Then you gave a contradicting source saying that the investigators were concerned about the structural stability the morning after the fire. You said that it doesn't matter that it wasn't a tall building, even though tall steel-framed buildings are a lot stronger than smaller ones. I'm sorry, this does not parallel the amazing display of precise foreknowledge for such an unprecedented event. It doesn't matter if the magic OEM engineer said the conclusion was based on the severity of the fires or the damage from falling debris, he was probably lying. You can bet that bulge didn't do much, either.



I explained to you, literally like you were five, evidence that the East Penthouse was not the first sign of collapse. In fact, the sharpprintinginc website provided photographic evidence that the entire building literally rocked slightly about 90 seconds before the East Penthouse dropped: Accurate Collapse History of WTC7 - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research
Click to expand...

No human being can predict whether a building will collapse due to fire?

REALLY?

What rule book is that from?

Please. Do tell.

The engineer did it that day.

The firefighters did it that day.

They were right.

And explosions happen in fires.

You do know that.... Right?

And a building as it fails internally will make noise. Hell, it was making noises noted by the firefighters hours before the final collapse.

And please share... Who are the experts asking for a new investigation?

It isn't the ASCE.
It isn't the CTBUH.
It isn't AIA.
It isn't the firefighters.

Who are the experts?

AE911TRUTH?

The fraction of a percentage group?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Nope.





Like I said, the official verdicts on the collapse of WTC 7 changed over time and it will probably continue to change in the future. If the supreme government-endorsed scientific literature on how Building 7 collapsed has been shown to be fraudulent, what can you trust? Do you think that the experts who rubber-stamped the NIST WTC 7 reports knew that they omitted important elements to the Building in their computer model? Or that their computer model for the fires don't match the photographic evidence? Or any of the million reasons why it is simply wrong?



What are your reasons for thinking that WTC 7 didn't look like a demolition at all?



AE911TRUTH doesn't, and it's partially because they examined the issues raised above.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
No human being can predict whether a building will collapse due to fire?

REALLY?

What rule book is that from?

Please. Do tell.

The engineer did it that day.

The firefighters did it that day.

They were right.
Click to expand...


Okay, apparently you won't give up faith that the WTC 7 foreknowledge is normal. I don't think that's wise, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

And explosions happen in fires.

You do know that.... Right?
Click to expand...

We're talking about the sounds of explosions that happened prior and after the East Penthouse caved in, not the ones that occurred through the afternoon.

And a building as it fails internally will make noise. Hell, it was making noises noted by the firefighters hours before the final collapse.
Click to expand...

I guess you won't truly answer my question on the actual loudness of the noises that occurred before the building fell. Okay.



And please share... Who are the experts asking for a new investigation?

It isn't the ASCE.
It isn't the CTBUH.
It isn't AIA.
It isn't the firefighters.

Who are the experts?

AE911TRUTH?

The fraction of a percentage group?
Click to expand...

I gave you good reasons to think that anybody who doesn't think a new investigation is warranted for the WTC destruction is either uninformed or delusional. The NFPA 921, and almost any other scientific literature on arson/explosion investigation, is enough expert consensus to warrant a new investigation. The question doesn't have to apply to 9/11 specifically. In fact, that's a better standard because sources like the NFPA 921 are objective and not blinded by denial or cognitive dissonance. It seems you give human beings too much credit, like how you believe an engineer can just waltz in two hours after the North Tower collapsed and declare that Building 7 will also collapse in 5 hours.

By the way, you never explained that elevator car in the hallway of the WTC 7 lobby that at least two sources said existed. Do you think that was normal or do you think it wasn't true?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom