Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

[Fledermaus]

Micah Arson Theory = Epileptic Trees

A term for wild, off-the-wall theories. Named after a leading tinfoil-hat theory explaining the mysterious shaking, rustling trees on Lost during the first season of that program. The theory? The trees are having epileptic fits.

 

[MicahJava]

Who said it was "hot North Tower steel"? Other than you.

By all means, "hot North Tower steel" igniting the fires in WTC 7 is the official story.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Most likely, the WTC 7 fires began as a result of burning debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at about 10:28:22 a.m. Soon after that, there were numerous vehicles around WTC 7 that were on fire, presumably ignited by burning debris from the tower. It is likely that nascent fires were also growing within WTC 7 around the same time, although visual evidence of fires in the building was not available until around noon. (page 60 of pdf)

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation
4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces.

A crucial aspect of a fire investigation is identifying how the fire ignited.

Based on photographic evidence, the only rubble from the North Tower that ejected outside of it's footprint were pieces of steel.

There is no photographic evidence for flaming debris coming out of the North Tower during collapse, and no debris could remain flaming after passing through the thick cloud of pulverized concrete, gypsum, fireproofing material, etc.

So, we are left with burning (only in the sense of being hot) steel being the official cause of the fires in WTC 7.

This is the official word based on the opinions of experts investigating this particular aspect of the circumstances leading to WTC 7 becoming a pile of rubble.

 

[MicahJava]

Magic Micah dust.... It will stop fires in WTC7 but didn't stop fire anywhere else in the WTC complex.....

WTC 7 was the only building outside of the Twin Tower's footprint to have fires, and by photographic evidence we can identify exactly what kind of rubble struck Building 7: pieces of structural steel. There is official word on what exactly caused the fires in WTC 7, yet no official word on what caused the fires in WTC 5, 6, and those cars.

 

[MicahJava]

Go smash some electrical equipment while plugged in and on and see if some of them spark. Start with your PC.:lamo

Simple sparks will not due in a building caked in 2 inches of WTC dust. Also, office furnishings like in WTC 7 are required to have a certain level of fire-resistance. It's not like you can hold a lighter up to a piece of typical high-rise office carpet and it'll automatically catch on fire.

What evidence do you have that "the inside of the building caked in like 2 inches of WTC dust"

A basic understanding of the situation in Downtown Manhattan on September 11th, 2001, and the area around the World Trade Center.

Do you believe all office fires are large from the start?

Depends. At the least, there is enough leeway in the timeline to allow for humans to go inside of WTC 7 and intentionally set fires.

I am sorry you cannot figure out how an office building may catch on fire when damaged from falling debris.
You asked for some possible answers to how fires might start. I gave you some answers. Clearly you did not like the answers.

you got me. It had to be an arsonist as Tony claims. Ask him for specifics. :mrgreen:

Man, debunkers make awful investigators. In a fire investigation, you have a to have a plausible (and preferably evidence-based) reason for how the fires started. Whatever your reason is, it had to happen times ten because floor-by-floor fire spread could not have happened.

 

[mike2810]

Simple sparks will not due in a building caked in 2 inches of WTC dust. Also, office furnishings like in WTC 7 are required to have a certain level of fire-resistance. It's not like you can hold a lighter up to a piece of typical high-rise office carpet and it'll automatically catch on fire.



A basic understanding of the situation in Downtown Manhattan on September 11th, 2001, and the area around the World Trade Center.



Depends. At the least, there is enough leeway in the timeline to allow for humans to go inside of WTC 7 and intentionally set fires.



Man, debunkers make awful investigators. In a fire investigation, you have a to have a plausible (and preferably evidence-based) reason for how the fires started. Whatever your reason is, it had to happen times ten because floor-by-floor fire spread could not have happened.

So no one site inside WTC7 evidence of the caked with dust statement. Got it.

I'll bite. Please provide the source and exact quotes where an official investigation stated floor by floor fire spread could not have occurred.
Also provide the source and exact quote where it is stated that the fires had to start on each floor individually and independent to fires elsewhere in the building.

 

[MicahJava]

So no one site inside WTC7 evidence of the caked with dust statement. Got it.

Mike, look at this picture. WTC 7 had one or two big holes in it and a whole bunch of broken windows. Imagine that gigantic thick dust cloud rushing into the building. "2 inches of dust" is being conservative.

I'll bite. Please provide the source and exact quotes where an official investigation stated floor by floor fire spread could not have occurred.
Also provide the source and exact quote where it is stated that the fires had to start on each floor individually and independent to fires elsewhere in the building.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

"There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread until perhaps just before the WTC 7 collapse. Thus, the fire-rated floors were successful as fire penetration barriers. " (page 102 of PDF)

 

[ozeco41]

Go smash some electrical equipment while plugged in and on and see if some of them spark. Start with your PC.:lamo

PCs have a Power Supply that turns the wriggly input voltage - at ~120 or ~240 Volts - into non-wriggly volts at mostly 12v and 5 v plus few others.

The power supply fails if the smoke and sparks escape. Smoke comes out >>> invariably Power Supply is broken.

So in my past I have occasionally gone into a computer shop - Power Supply dangling from the multi-coloured wires and asked:

"Do you put new smoke into these things?"

The more serious part of the post goes to reversed burden of proof:

I am sorry you cannot figure out how an office building may catch on fire when damaged from falling debris.

True statement of fact.

There is no valid opposing hypothesis for "arson".

End of discussion as far as presumptions/proof of causality are concerned. Anyone can enjoy musing the range of plausibles.

My Santa's Custard Hypothesis[SUP]TM[/SUP] is as well or better argued than most.

IF It had to be an arsonist as Tony claims. Ask him for specifics. :mrgreen:

:thumbs: Correct allocation of BoP

 

[MicahJava]

PCs have a Power Supply that turns the wriggly input voltage - at ~120 or ~240 Volts - into non-wriggly volts at mostly 12v and 5 v plus few others.

The power supply fails if the smoke and sparks escape. Smoke comes out >>> invariably Power Supply is broken.

So in my past I have occasionally gone into a computer shop - Power Supply dangling from the multi-coloured wires and asked:

"Do you put new smoke into these things?"

The more serious part of the post goes to reversed burden of proof:

True statement of fact.

There is no valid opposing hypothesis for "arson".

End of discussion as far as presumptions/proof of causality are concerned. Anyone can enjoy musing the range of plausibles.

My Santa's Custard Hypothesis[SUP]TM[/SUP] is as well or better argued than most.

:thumbs: Correct allocation of BoP

The situation in complicated when the building in question is caked in dust. It would be like a building full of sand catching on fire.

All I am trying to do is demonstrate that the source of the fires in WTC 7 is questionable enough to pile on to the reasons to have a new investigation.



This is the the "Fire Tetrahedron", a symbol of the three most important aspects of a fire investigation. For the Oxygen, I admit that the perimeter damage and broken windows in WTC 7 would give more oxygen than average to circulate. For the fuel, I admit that WTC 7 was full of office furnishings, yet I must stress the WTC dust factor. The "heat" (ignition) factor, however, has some problems as discussed here and the WTC dust factor must also be taken into account.

 

[Fledermaus]

WTC 7 was the only building outside of the Twin Tower's footprint to have fires, and by photographic evidence we can identify exactly what kind of rubble struck Building 7: pieces of structural steel. There is official word on what exactly caused the fires in WTC 7, yet no official word on what caused the fires in WTC 5, 6, and those cars.

Now the "footprint" nonsense....

And it is interesting you believe you can see through the dust clouds....

And "official word on what exactly caused the fires in WTC 7, yet no official word on what caused the fires in WTC 5, 6, and those cars"

Another claim firmly based on ignorance....

Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-7140/403_ch4.pdf

Are you tired of being wrong yet?

 

[Fledermaus]

Mike, look at this picture. WTC 7 had one or two big holes in it and a whole bunch of broken windows. Imagine that gigantic thick dust cloud rushing into the building. "2 inches of dust" is being conservative.

Magic Micah dust to the rescue....

Why didn't the Magic Micah dust keep WTC 3, 4, and 5 from catching fire?

 

[MicahJava]

Now the "footprint" nonsense....

More variables. For example, the molten material seen flowing from the South Tower. WTC 7 was the only building outside of the WTC complex to have fires. Other buildings had rubble damage, but not fires.

And it is interesting you believe you can see through the dust clouds....

Confirmation that you are not familiar with the photographic evidence. The only objects you can identify hitting WTC 7 were pieces of steel, which can clearly be seen in videos and photographs.

And "official word on what exactly caused the fires in WTC 7, yet no official word on what caused the fires in WTC 5, 6, and those cars"

Another claim firmly based on ignorance....

Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-7140/403_ch4.pdf

Are you tired of being wrong yet?

Did FEMA actually investigate the fires and determine the cause of each one? It doesn't look like they did. They just assumed like you are assuming.

 

[MicahJava]

Magic Micah dust to the rescue....

Why didn't the Magic Micah dust keep WTC 3, 4, and 5 from catching fire?

Have you realized yet that the rubble damage to WTC 7 was only on the side of the building, while the other buildings were gutted by rubble falling onto the roof? That complicates the situation.

 

[Fledermaus]

More variables. For example, the molten material seen flowing from the South Tower. WTC 7 was the only building outside of the WTC complex to have fires. Other buildings had rubble damage, but not fires.

And all the buildings inside the complex?

Confirmation that you are not familiar with the photographic evidence. The only objects you can identify hitting WTC 7 were pieces of steel, which can clearly be seen in videos and photographs.

Ah,,,,, Magic Micah eyes can see through dust... Got it.

In the non-magic world debris caused widespread fires...

Did FEMA actually investigate the fires and determine the cause of each one? It doesn't look like they did. They just assumed like you are assuming.

Damn... The goalposts were here just a moment ago.....

When wrong... Simply move goalpost... Standard CT tactic.

 

[Fledermaus]

Have you realized yet that the rubble damage to WTC 7 was only on the side of the building, while the other buildings were gutted by rubble falling onto the roof? That complicates the situation.

Then there would be MORE MAGIC MICAH DUST.... MORE DUST MORE FIREPROOF....

No, wait... It is only magic in WTC7.

 

[ozeco41]

The situation in complicated when the building in question is caked in dust. It would be like a building full of sand catching on fire.

All I am trying to do is demonstrate that the source of the fires in WTC 7 is questionable enough to pile on to the reasons to have a new investigation.

I understand where you are coming from.

It is the same challenge facing e.g. AE911Truth. There are at least two main sets of barriers facing you. And I doubt that technical issues are of much help - the need is for political traction and AE911 wont get traction when they rely on false technical claims like CD. You and others pushing the arson or other MHI at WTC7 face the same problem only it is worse at WTC 7 for reasons that the Truth movement has brought down on itself.

AE911 and like pushes are the biggest barrier to success facing genuine truthers. Those who hold genuine political concerns. Because AE911 ties possible genuine concerns to a false technical foundation - CD at WTC. And then self deludes into thinking that they have a case to answer. How long do you think that the likes of T Szamboti would survive under cross examination in a formal process? Faced by people who know what they are talking about. It would be dragged out for a few of hours death by a thousand cuts. That the nature of "due process" proceedings.

For an analogy have you read the transcript of Michael Behe's evidence in Kitzmiller v Dover?? If you haven't I recommend that you do. It was the most recent "creationism v evolution" case in US Federal Court. He went in lying for his version of God and got carved into pieces. Well worth the read. And a salutary lesson for anyone thinking about a "New Investigation". All the petty games played on forums would not survive in a real investigation.

So - Step one - be realistic as to why the truth movement switched focus to WTC 7 - two related reasons:

(1) They had lost claims for CD at the Twins BUT (2) had established in some arenas the practice of opponents accepting revered burden of proof. Most prominent in forum discussions - which is itself off mainstream for politics.

A strategy of debating trickery on forums will not survive in the reality of the political arena.

And there will be no "New Investigation" until and unless the Truth Movement somehow gains political traction.

Best of luck if you see that happening. I don't BUT I'm AU - I can read AU politics - not US.

 

[MicahJava]

Garbage.

Hey, you're posting garbage! Quit that!

Damn... The goalposts were here just a moment ago.....

When wrong... Simply move goalpost... Standard CT tactic.

Moving the goalposts? I'm asking for proper fire investigations for the buildings within the Twin Tower footprints, not an off-hand comment that the fires in WTC 5 and 6 were probably caused by falling rubble.

 

[MicahJava]

I understand where you are coming from.

It is the same challenge facing e.g. AE911Truth. There are at least two main sets of barriers facing you. And I doubt that technical issues are of much help - the need is for political traction and AE911 wont get traction when they rely on false technical claims like CD. You and others pushing the arson or other MHI at WTC7 face the same problem only it is worse at WTC 7 for reasons that the Truth movement has brought down on itself.

AE911 and like pushes are the biggest barrier to success facing genuine truthers. Those who hold genuine political concerns. Because AE911 ties possible genuine concerns to a false technical foundation - CD at WTC. And then self deludes into thinking that they have a case to answer. How long do you think that the likes of T Szamboti would survive under cross examination in a formal process? Faced by people who know what they are talking about. It would be dragged out for a few of hours death by a thousand cuts. That the nature of "due process" proceedings.

For an analogy have you read the transcript of Michael Behe's evidence in Kitzmiller v Dover?? If you haven't I recommend that you do. It was the most recent "creationism v evolution" case in US Federal Court. He went in lying for his version of God and got carved into pieces. Well worth the read. And a salutary lesson for anyone thinking about a "New Investigation". All the petty games played on forums would not survive in a real investigation.

So - Step one - be realistic as to why the truth movement switched focus to WTC 7 - two related reasons:

(1) They had lost claims for CD at the Twins BUT (2) had established in some arenas the practice of opponents accepting revered burden of proof. Most prominent in forum discussions - which is itself off mainstream for politics.

A strategy of debating trickery on forums will not survive in the reality of the political arena.

And there will be no "New Investigation" until and unless the Truth Movement somehow gains political traction.

Best of luck if you see that happening. I don't BUT I'm AU - I can read AU politics - not US.

Nice propaganda. Once more information gets compiled on the foreknowledge issue - which is a non-technical issue - and the basic facts on that are circulated to the general public (which can be summed up in a few paragraphs) - I can guarantee that more and more people will be questioning the World Trade Center. Do you think that every single person who felt smug after reading something by Popular Mechanics would feel the same way if they knew that some anonymous engineer was predicting the hour of WTC 7's collapse to fire chiefs? Do you think everybody, once they read about what the firefighters had to say, will be satisfied with the explanation of "educated people making educated estimations"?

Any lowly citizens can make FOIA requests, and the target for FOIA requests should be the NIST transcripts of interviews they did with fire chiefs and other firefighters who were around building Seven. I bet if those are ever released, more instances of this "engineer" fellow, or other unknown individuals leading the decisions of top fire chiefs will pop up. More people, if they bothered to read about it, would ask "how did he know? how is this possible?". You don't need technical knowledge to know that there is something strange about the foreknowledge of Seven's collapse. Perhaps one day questioning the destruction of the Towers, and 9/11 as a whole, would be as common as believing that police officers are often immature power-crazed psychopaths. 9/11's impact will never go away, so it will always remain somewhat relevant.

 

[ozeco41]

Nice propaganda. Once more information gets compiled on the foreknowledge issue - which is a non-technical issue - and the basic facts on that are circulated to the general public (which can be summed up in a few paragraphs) - I can guarantee that more and more people will be questioning the World Trade Center. Do you think that every single person who felt smug after reading something by Popular Mechanics would feel the same way if they knew that some anonymous engineer was predicting the hour of WTC 7's collapse to fire chiefs? Do you think everybody, once they read about what the firefighters had to say, will be satisfied with the explanation of "educated people making educated estimations"?

Any lowly citizens can make FOIA requests, and the target for FOIA requests should be the NIST transcripts of interviews they did with fire chiefs and other firefighters who were around building Seven. I bet if those are ever released, more instances of this "engineer" fellow, or other unknown individuals leading the decisions of top fire chiefs will pop up. More people, if they bothered to read about it, would ask "how did he know? how is this possible?". You don't need technical knowledge to know that there is something strange about the foreknowledge of Seven's collapse. Perhaps one day questioning the destruction of the Towers, and 9/11 as a whole, would be as common as believing that police officers are often immature power-crazed psychopaths. 9/11's impact will never go away, so it will always remain somewhat relevant.

My comments still stand.

The Truth Movement needs political traction.
---You think you can get it from pursuing minor details about evidence in the technical arena.
--- I don't when the main thrust of the technical claims is patently false.

You are not even game here to specifically identify your technical target.

And you evade the relatively mild challenges I just posted for you.

How will you or any other truth advocate survive in a real investigation when you cannot - or are not prepared to - defend your argument in the soft frame of an internet forum?

Do yourself a favour and read the Behe transcript from Kitzmiller v Dover. T Szamboti should also read it. And he is probably the best that AE911 has. Get real. :doh

And pursuing the frustrations with opponents on Internet Forums wont advance the political cause when the fault is structural.

A) Your strategy like AE911 is on the losing end of the technical arguments; AND
B) Even if you succeed in causing doubt among a minority of the general citizenry the technical arguments will not win political mileage.

So - my advice remains. Go for the political issues NOT the technical ones.

Remember 15 years on and none of the efforts of the truth movement has advanced valid claims which even put dents in the big 3 (or 5) technical issues.

 

[MicahJava]

My comments still stand.

The Truth Movement needs political traction.
---You think you can get it from pursuing minor details about evidence in the technical arena.
--- I don't when the main thrust of the technical claims is patently false.

You are not even game here to specifically identify your technical target.

And you evade the relatively mild challenges I just posted for you.

How will you or any other truth advocate survive in a real investigation when you cannot - or are not prepared to - defend your argument in the soft frame of an internet forum?

Do yourself a favour and read the Behe transcript from Kitzmiller v Dover. T Szamboti should also read it. And he is probably the best that AE911 has. Get real. :doh

And pursuing the frustrations with opponents on Internet Forums wont advance the political cause when the fault is structural.

A) Your strategy like AE911 is on the losing end of the technical arguments; AND
B) Even if you succeed in causing doubt among a minority of the general citizenry the technical arguments will not win political mileage.

So - my advice remains. Go for the political issues NOT the technical ones.

Remember 15 years on and none of the efforts of the truth movement has advanced valid claims which even put dents in the big 3 (or 5) technical issues.

It seems that you are correct in how the public eye views the issue, including you.

9/11 is becoming more of a hot topic these days, more people are having the cynical opinion that some things were covered up from the public eye.

This will naturally bring more people towards the controlled demolition hypothesis, and the non-technical aspects of it, like the anomalous foreknowledge with WTC 7, are more accessible than the technical ones.

 

[ozeco41]

It seems that you are correct in how the public eye views the issue, including you.

Two different perspectives - both at least mostly true but don't confuse or conflate them as equal.

9/11 is becoming more of a hot topic these days, more people are having the cynical opinion that some things were covered up from the public eye.

You seem to still miss the points I make. I have ZERO problem with anyone pursuing the political aspects. I am also of ZERO doubt that some things were covered up. And ZERO doubt that there were bits of MIHOP, LIHOP and LIHOOI. Where I would probably disagree is the scale and significance of those issues. So that is Point #1

Point #2 is that pursuing false technical claims has been, still is and will remain a barrier to the Truth Movement gaining political traction. Why carry the albatross of technical dishonesty if you and others are serious about the political concerns?

For you personally - if you still genuinely think there was CD - you have some work to do.

This will naturally bring more people towards the controlled demolition hypothesis, and...

You need to be prepared to warn them away from those discredited issues. A few minutes or hours searching will reveal the reality of no CD.

and the non-technical aspects of it, like the anomalous foreknowledge with WTC 7, are more accessible than the technical ones.

Sure the non-technical is accessible AND it is the possibly viable way forward. So once again why overload them with false non-technical claims. You would do the Truth Movement better service if you joined those who oppose dishonesty and false claims.

 

[Fledermaus]

Moving the goalposts? I'm asking for proper fire investigations for the buildings within the Twin Tower footprints, not an off-hand comment that the fires in WTC 5 and 6 were probably caused by falling rubble.

Yes... Moving goalposts....

WTC 7 was the only building outside of the Twin Tower's footprint to have fires, and by photographic evidence we can identify exactly what kind of rubble struck Building 7: pieces of structural steel. There is official word on what exactly caused the fires in WTC 7, yet no official word on what caused the fires in WTC 5, 6, and those cars.

Wrong...

Did FEMA actually investigate the fires and determine the cause of each one? It doesn't look like they did. They just assumed like you are assuming.

Goalposts moved....

One of many... Collect them all.

 

[Fledermaus]

It seems that you are correct in how the public eye views the issue, including you.

9/11 is becoming more of a hot topic these days, more people are having the cynical opinion that some things were covered up from the public eye.

This will naturally bring more people towards the controlled demolition hypothesis, and the non-technical aspects of it, like the anomalous foreknowledge with WTC 7, are more accessible than the technical ones.

Ah, no....

9/11 is on it's way to the Conspiracy Junkyard....

The MIHOP crowd averaged under 5% in a poll done for the Truthers....

You are a blip. A historical footnote...

Hell, AE911Truth and their BFF's had to disguise the latest attempt for political traction as a "safety" issue. And it STILL failed....

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Furthermore, if any of you can't get over the idea of so-called "silent explosives", then you may recall that there exist completely silent hydraulic devices used for verinage demolitions.

Wee hint ... since verinage is NOT an explosive technique, your wee attempt at a "point" here utterly FAILS ...

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Ah, no....

9/11 is on it's way to the Conspiracy Junkyard....

The MIHOP crowd averaged under 5% in a poll done for the Truthers....

You are a blip. A historical footnote...

Hell, AE911Truth and their BFF's had to disguise the latest attempt for political traction as a "safety" issue. And it STILL failed....

9/11 Truth is sooooo passe now ... sooo 2001 ... all the cool kids now are into the Flat Earth Derp you know ... :beam:

 

[Fledermaus]

9/11 Truth is sooooo passe now ... sooo 2001 ... all the cool kids now are into the Flat Earth Derp you know ... :beam:

I believe their heyday was 2006... Slipping into obscurity ever since.