Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next

Topic: NIST says WTC building # 7 collapse caused by fire.
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 04/23/12 09:34 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 04/23/12 09:35 PM
Bull crap. You don't have to understand the "math." I know a snow job when I see it and 2 plus 2 equals 4. All that computer simulation and so-called math means NOTHING when plain old common sense and facts of real evidence it right there in front of you. End of story.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 04/23/12 09:37 PM
The NIST report did not use any "math." They simply fabricated evidence and made false statements. The fires did not and could not have gotten that hot.

Optomistic69 Joined Mon 10/10/11 Posts: 5173	Tue 04/24/12 01:06 AM
Contrary to some claims here that building WTC #7 fell because of structural damage, that is not the theory reported by NIST. (NIST is the "National Institute of Standards and Technology.") WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. And although NIST had at one time planned to claim that this building's collapse was partly due to damage inflected by debris from the North Tower's collapse, it ended up not making this claim. "Other than initiating fires in WTC 7 , NIST says, in its final report, "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." Whereas the Twin Towers were unique, for a few hours, in being the only steel framed high rise to collapse without the aid of explosives, WTC 7, according to NIST, was (and still is) unique in being the only steel framed building in which total collapse was induced by fire alone. This thread is for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss WTC #7

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Tue 04/24/12 02:09 AM
Bull crap. You don't have to understand the "math." I know a snow job when I see it and 2 plus 2 equals 4. All that computer simulation and so-called math means NOTHING when plain old common sense and facts of real evidence it right there in front of you. End of story. still have no Facts! Feelings ain't Facts! Commonsense is useless without them!

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Tue 04/24/12 03:18 AM
Contrary to some claims here that building WTC #7 fell because of structural damage, that is not the theory reported by NIST. (NIST is the "National Institute of Standards and Technology.") WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. And although NIST had at one time planned to claim that this building's collapse was partly due to damage inflected by debris from the North Tower's collapse, it ended up not making this claim. "Other than initiating fires in WTC 7 , NIST says, in its final report, "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." Whereas the Twin Towers were unique, for a few hours, in being the only steel framed high rise to collapse without the aid of explosives, WTC 7, according to NIST, was (and still is) unique in being the only steel framed building in which total collapse was induced by fire alone. This thread is for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss WTC #7 I see you have been reduced to cheerleader in chief.. We covered this already..

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Tue 04/24/12 05:23 AM
Bull crap. You don't have to understand the "math." I know a snow job when I see it and 2 plus 2 equals 4. All that computer simulation and so-called math means NOTHING when plain old common sense and facts of real evidence it right there in front of you. End of story. You have to understand the math, physics, mechanics, material science, etc., to understand the engineering sufficiently to create or verify (or discount) the existing theories. You simply make them up from lies you have read or from nothing. Those are the facts. But it doesn't take an engineer to recognize the "truther" version of events as crazy. Simple logic works just fine. If you understood scientific concepts like "bristance", you would realize how absurd the explosive theory is. But you don't understand the science of anything. Those are the facts. You state garbage as facts with no proof. You make insulting remarks as if you know things no one else knows. You don't know enough science to even make it SOUND like you know anything. When someone points out organizations like ASCE that provide tons of peer reviewed analysis, you can't even use the term ASCE in proper context. Those are the facts. You constantly claim that you can see BS when the only thing you prove is that you produce it. That is the biggest fact. Real engineering is a mix of common sense and highly advanced science. If you knew the math and science, you would instantly discount any reason to research explosives because the heat from the fires is enough to bring these buildings down. A direct analysis (which you can't do) gives the approximate time it would take to do it. This concept matches reality. Yours do not. You do not offer alternate theories. You state crap for fact. Pieces of the twin towers burning and large enough to punch through multiple floors of WTC 7 is fact. Firemen in cahoots with the building owner demolishing the building with explosives is not common sense or any kind of sense. It is just stupid.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Tue 04/24/12 05:28 AM
The NIST report did not use any "math." They simply fabricated evidence and made false statements. The fires did not and could not have gotten that hot. The NIST used math to reach their conclusions in their report. The result of the math is the temperatures and distances given. Show your math that the fires did not and could not have gotten that hot.

Optomistic69 Joined Mon 10/10/11 Posts: 5173	Tue 04/24/12 06:25 AM
Contrary to some claims here that building WTC #7 fell because of structural damage, that is not the theory reported by NIST. (NIST is the "National Institute of Standards and Technology.") WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. And although NIST had at one time planned to claim that this building's collapse was partly due to damage inflected by debris from the North Tower's collapse, it ended up not making this claim. "Other than initiating fires in WTC 7 , NIST says, in its final report, "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." Whereas the Twin Towers were unique, for a few hours, in being the only steel framed high rise to collapse without the aid of explosives, WTC 7, according to NIST, was (and still is) unique in being the only steel framed building in which total collapse was induced by fire alone. This thread is for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss WTC #7 I see you have been reduced to cheerleader in chief.. We covered this already.. I have a Headache so Jeannie is having to do all the work.

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Tue 04/24/12 07:33 AM
Contrary to some claims here that building WTC #7 fell because of structural damage, that is not the theory reported by NIST. (NIST is the "National Institute of Standards and Technology.") WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. And although NIST had at one time planned to claim that this building's collapse was partly due to damage inflected by debris from the North Tower's collapse, it ended up not making this claim. "Other than initiating fires in WTC 7 , NIST says, in its final report, "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." Whereas the Twin Towers were unique, for a few hours, in being the only steel framed high rise to collapse without the aid of explosives, WTC 7, according to NIST, was (and still is) unique in being the only steel framed building in which total collapse was induced by fire alone. This thread is for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss WTC #7 I see you have been reduced to cheerleader in chief.. We covered this already.. I have a Headache so Jeannie is having to do all the work. excuses... excuses

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 04/24/12 09:10 AM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind. Why did you put my name here? I didn't type that thing you quoted. Cant you read?

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Tue 04/24/12 09:53 AM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind. Why did you put my name here? I didn't type that thing you quoted. Cant you read? \ they're so confused, they don't know who is writing what....

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 04/24/12 10:05 AM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind. Why did you put my name here? I didn't type that thing you quoted. Cant you read? \ they're so confused, they don't know who is writing what.... Mu closest post was like 7-8 posts away. Must have been using some too notch investigating when writing her response.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Tue 04/24/12 10:14 AM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind. Why did you put my name here? I didn't type that thing you quoted. Cant you read? \ they're so confused, they don't know who is writing what.... Mu closest post was like 7-8 posts away. Must have been using some too notch investigating when writing her response. well, it seems like it, so it must be... true critical thinking skills....

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 04/24/12 10:18 AM
My phone makes me look like I cant speak English. XD

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 04/24/12 11:02 AM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind. Why did you put my name here? I didn't type that thing you quoted. Cant you read? \ they're so confused, they don't know who is writing what.... Okay wrong person. Two peas in a pod. They both sound so much the same.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 04/24/12 11:07 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Tue 04/24/12 11:27 AM
The NIST report did not use any "math." They simply fabricated evidence and made false statements. The fires did not and could not have gotten that hot. The NIST used math to reach their conclusions in their report. The result of the math is the temperatures and distances given. Show your math that the fires did not and could not have gotten that hot. Using computer simulations gave them their figures. They needed to know HOW a building could be brought down by only a fire. They did hundreds of computer simulations until they got the figures, then they asserted that that is probably what happened. Sure, all the "math" probably comes out the way they want it. BUT they did not use real world evidence. They assumed and asserted that the fires must have lasted 7 hours because that is how long they would had to have burned in order to get as hot as they needed to get in order to cause the building to collapse. WTC7 was no towering inferno that burned for 7 hours. They have not evidence that it even burned in one area for 4 hours. They have no evidence about how hot the fire got. They only have their computer simulations and assertions.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 04/24/12 11:29 AM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind. Why did you put my name here? I didn't type that thing you quoted. Cant you read? \ they're so confused, they don't know who is writing what.... Okay wrong person. Two peas in a pod. They both sound so much the same. Is that what you tell your clients when you do that while investigating?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 04/24/12 11:43 AM
Chazster who is attacking who? your saying your the only ones that know the truth, and if we don't believe you, we're stupid. but then you say we don't wanna discuss this, because yall already think we are stupid for not agreeing with you in the first place. we have all shown you ample evidence that 9-11 was not the grand conspiracy yall say it is, but i don't have a problem with you believing in what you want. but since you never want to discuss the evidence we put in here, whats the point of continuing? Chaster: I am only one person. I don't think you are stupid. I have never ever said such a thing. I have not said that I am or "we are" the "only ones that know the truth. I am not "Yall." What you are doing is generalizing and clumping me in with every other "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" on the Internet. I post specific points that I believe are good points and all I get back is attitude and a defensive posture from people who are doing nothing more than defending their position because they have already made up their minds that they believe there is no "cover-up" and that the Twin towers were destroyed by radical Muslim terrorists who could barely fly a plane. It is clear that you have been successfully convinced that this is the case and you have no intention of even listening to any alternative theory or possibility. Your ears and minds are closed. Fine by me. But don't tell me that I am attacking you because that is all in your mind. Why did you put my name here? I didn't type that thing you quoted. Cant you read? \ they're so confused, they don't know who is writing what.... Okay wrong person. Two peas in a pod. They both sound so much the same. Is that what you tell your clients when you do that while investigating? You are not "my clients."

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Tue 04/24/12 11:46 AM
The NIST report did not use any "math." They simply fabricated evidence and made false statements. The fires did not and could not have gotten that hot. The NIST used math to reach their conclusions in their report. The result of the math is the temperatures and distances given. Show your math that the fires did not and could not have gotten that hot. Using computer simulations gave them their figures. They needed to know HOW a building could be brought down by only a fire. They did hundreds of computer simulations until they got the figures, then they asserted that that is probably what happened. Sure, all the "math" probably comes out the way they want it. BUT they did not use real world evidence. They assumed and asserted that the fires must have lasted 7 hours because that is how long they would had to have burned in order to get as hot as they needed to get in order to cause the building to collapse. WTC7 was no towering inferno that burned for 7 hours. They have not evidence that it even burned in one area for 4 hours. They have no evidence about how hot the fire got. They only have their computer simulations and assertions. do we have anything but assertions from you? Ever worked in the Field of Technology?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 04/24/12 11:51 AM
The NIST report did not use any "math." They simply fabricated evidence and made false statements. The fires did not and could not have gotten that hot. The NIST used math to reach their conclusions in their report. The result of the math is the temperatures and distances given. Show your math that the fires did not and could not have gotten that hot. Using computer simulations gave them their figures. They needed to know HOW a building could be brought down by only a fire. They did hundreds of computer simulations until they got the figures, then they asserted that that is probably what happened. Sure, all the "math" probably comes out the way they want it. BUT they did not use real world evidence. They assumed and asserted that the fires must have lasted 7 hours because that is how long they would had to have burned in order to get as hot as they needed to get in order to cause the building to collapse. WTC7 was no towering inferno that burned for 7 hours. They have not evidence that it even burned in one area for 4 hours. They have no evidence about how hot the fire got. They only have their computer simulations and assertions. do we have anything but assertions from you? Ever worked in the Field of Technology? What you have from me is not your problem. You are putting your faith in assertions from people you are presuming are experts. They should offer more than assertions. That is their job. It's not my job to prove anything. I just want people to wake up from their coma's and ask the hard questions that your government won't answer.