100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: NIST says WTC building # 7 collapse caused by fire. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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. 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. That's why I am so amused at you all! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/24/12 12:09 PM
|
|
Have I ever worked in the field of technology... mmmm let me think... oh yeh, once. (for 3 years)
I worked in a clean room with extremely explosive powder making getters of all shapes and sizes for vacuum tubes. I had to work using a microscope. The powder, if ignited, would melt through my stainless steel work table. (and then the floor.) (it's called "a meltdown.") The getters then had to be heated to a specified temperature under pressure. That's about the size of my experience in what you might call "technology." But you seem to think if a person is not in the field that they don't have a brain at all and can't see a snow job when one exists. Attacking the messenger and blowing your own horn is all you know how to do. P.S. The name of the company was Saes Getters. It is an Italian owned company. I even found their website.... http://www.saesgetters.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."
I never said we were. I was just pointing out how thorough you are not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."
I never said we were. I was just pointing out how thorough you are not. Attacking the messenger again? Of course you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have I ever worked in the field of technology... mmmm let me think... oh yeh, once. (for 3 years) I worked in a clean room with extremely explosive powder making getters of all shapes and sizes for vacuum tubes. I had to work using a microscope. The powder, if ignited, would melt through my stainless steel work table. (and then the floor.) (it's called "a meltdown.") The getters then had to be heated to a specified temperature under pressure. That's about the size of my experience in what you might call "technology." But you seem to think if a person is not in the field that they don't have a brain at all and can't see a snow job when one exists. Attacking the messenger and blowing your own horn is all you know how to do. P.S. The name of the company was Saes Getters. It is an Italian owned company. I even found their website.... http://www.saesgetters.com/ So I have worked with "explosives" and in a technical job. And it was a dangerous one too. We had to wear natural fibers so as not to make any sparks that would ignite something. Oh yes, I also worked at Estes Industry, a model rocket company. We made rocket engines for model rockets, which were basically just black gun powder. One guy did get blown up. He died. He wore a nylon shirt to work one day and caused a spark. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."
I never said we were. I was just pointing out how thorough you are not. Attacking the messenger again? Of course you are.
No counter attacking you. You attacked me first on a post I didn't even make and were not even kind enough to apologize. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."
I never said we were. I was just pointing out how thorough you are not. Attacking the messenger again? Of course you are.
No counter attacking you. You attacked me first on a post I didn't even make and were not even kind enough to apologize. False accusation. Poor baby. A mistake is not an attack. I was responding to Mightmoe and thought it was you. And you two do start to sound the same after a while. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."
I never said we were. I was just pointing out how thorough you are not. Attacking the messenger again? Of course you are.
No counter attacking you. You attacked me first on a post I didn't even make and were not even kind enough to apologize. False accusation. Poor baby. A mistake is not an attack. I was responding to Mightmoe and thought it was you. And you two do start to sound the same after a while. Well i dont think pointing out your mistake is an attack yet you called it one.It is much less of an attack then what you did i didnt even have a post near his it was like 8 posts away. And even in your response you are attempting to be condesending yey you claim no attack. You cant really hide your true colors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shooting the messenger seems to be a favourite pass-time of a dedicated few on here....sad very sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shooting The Messenger is not confined to this site...in fact some on here do exactly the same thing on other sites.
They even shoot down absolute fact on occasions....??????????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NIST FABRICATIONS and contradictions.
NIST'S simulated fires on floor 13 are illustrated in figure 9-11 of its report by graphics that display "hourly snapshots of the upper layer temperatures predicted by the model for the 12th floor." The graphic for 5:00 PM shows fires that were very big and very hot, between 500 c and 1,000 C (932 F and 1,832 F). Such fires would have been highly visible from the outside. These fires would have been visible, that is, if they had existed. A photograph of the north face that had been taken fifteen minutes earlier shows that they did not. This photograph was even described, surely to NIST's present embarrassment, in its Interim Report on WTC 7, published in 2004. This report said: "Around 4:45 pm, a photograph showed fires on floors 7,8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face: Floor 12 was burned out by this time." Here we have an outright contradiction. On the one hand, NIST's computer simulation, based on its claim that floor 12's combustible loading was "high" portrayed this floor as the scene of a raging inferno at 5:00 PM. On the other hand, photographic evidence shows that, in the real world, this floor's fires had completely burned out at least fifteen minutes earlier, perhaps because all of its combustibles had alread combusted. This contradiction, which existed in NIST's Draft for Public Comment, was pointed out to NIST by Richard Gage, and also James Gourley, who said "It appears that NIST's computer fire simulation are not representative at all of the fires actually occurring in WTC7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NIST FABRICATIONS and contradictions. NIST'S simulated fires on floor 13 are illustrated in figure 9-11 of its report by graphics that display "hourly snapshots of the upper layer temperatures predicted by the model for the 12th floor." The graphic for 5:00 PM shows fires that were very big and very hot, between 500 c and 1,000 C (932 F and 1,832 F). Such fires would have been highly visible from the outside. These fires would have been visible, that is, if they had existed. A photograph of the north face that had been taken fifteen minutes earlier shows that they did not. This photograph was even described, surely to NIST's present embarrassment, in its Interim Report on WTC 7, published in 2004. This report said: "Around 4:45 pm, a photograph showed fires on floors 7,8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face: Floor 12 was burned out by this time." Here we have an outright contradiction. On the one hand, NIST's computer simulation, based on its claim that floor 12's combustible loading was "high" portrayed this floor as the scene of a raging inferno at 5:00 PM. On the other hand, photographic evidence shows that, in the real world, this floor's fires had completely burned out at least fifteen minutes earlier, perhaps because all of its combustibles had alread combusted. This contradiction, which existed in NIST's Draft for Public Comment, was pointed out to NIST by Richard Gage, and also James Gourley, who said "It appears that NIST's computer fire simulation are not representative at all of the fires actually occurring in WTC7. What is really funny is that you don't point out that James Gourley is a lawyer for the "truth" movement. They must have redacted the statement "Trust me. I'm a lawyer!" from the document.
I read his comments on the 2007 ASCE publication in the Journal of Structural Mechanics and I read the journal. This clown Gourley doesn't have a clue and you are copying his work. You offer a "truther" lawyer as an expert? 
For the record, the one dimensional analysis was to develop absorptive energy models which were verified by an order of magnitude. This model allowed us to predict how much each floor slowed the falling debris from above ... but when the absorptive energy is over a order of magnitude that required for halting the progression, it pretty much looks like free fall. The model EXACTLY matched what I have have already posted here on these threads as the failure mode, which is explained in detail. You really shouldn't post false information about topics you don't understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 04/25/12 10:00 PM
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert."
Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... How is talking about an energy absorbent failure model not saying something intelligent? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... How is talking about an energy absorbent failure model not saying something intelligent?
gobble-de-****. The dribble that he posted did not address the actual subject of the post which was about the contradictions in the NIST reports. What real world evidence do they actually have that their was a towering inferno that burned to extraordinary temperatures for 7 hours when their own photo's show the fire on the 12th floor went out? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting someone is not exactly offering them as an "expert." Once again you attack the messenger instead of examining the actual message. I don't care if he is a lawyer for the truth movement. That does not discredit him in the slightest. I understand how you stand on the entire issue therefore you can just stop reading my posts. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post then say it. And I can post any information I want whether you think its "false" or not. I don't share your opinions, and there are also a lot of scientists and engineers who don't either. (Of course you only think the ones that agree with you are credible. )
If the 12th floor did not burn it did not burn. The entire theory hinges on a towering inferno. That had to exist in the real world.... Not just in a computer simulation.... huh... and you don't?... i think people on both sides should be more open to ideas from the other. but, some of the things truthers come up with are just weird... and funny too. I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/26/12 11:00 AM
|
|
Not to mention, if by the slim possibility that what they say is true, I am extremely shocked and disappointed that in this modern and scientific age the giant high rise buildings we live and work in are so poorly made that a small fire or a single plane can totally and completely demolish them in one afternoon.
What does that say for today's structural engineers, architects and scientists? Not much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I were to believe the official story, (which I don't) I would have also completely lost confidence in our military and our national defense.
Protocol was not followed. Those planes should have never gotten near their targets if someone had not intervened and given orders to stand down. No, I believe we have a good military. It is the commander and Chief and his administration (Bush-Cheney) that is to blame for 9-11. If this is not true, then our military is incompetent, our structural engineers are incompetent, and our high rise buildings are vulnerable to planes, fires etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Optomistic69
on
Thu 04/26/12 11:44 AM
|
|
I would listen to any credible scientist who had real world evidence and could explain in layman's terms how WTC7 collapsed from a fire alone. So far all the evidence has been mathematical equations and computer simulations programmed with various different information and fabrications until they could discover how it "might be possible" for the building to have collapsed totally with no explosives involved. I don't know of any building that has ever collapsed like that suddenly and totally from a fire, let alone a steel framed one. I watched a two story lumber company building made of dry wood burn all night (it got very hot too) and it did not collapse until all the wood frames were reduced to cinders. The combustibles in WTC7 were not even near what they were in that lumber company wood building. Common sense. Who do they think they are kidding anyway? I am shocked and disappointed that any scientist would buy into that extremely unlikely hypothesis that you call the "official story" of WTC7. Not to mention, if by the slim possibility that what they say is true, I am extremely shocked and disappointed that in this modern and scientific age the giant high rise buildings we live and work in are so poorly made that a small fire or a single plane can totally and completely demolish them in one afternoon. What does that say for today's structural engineers, architects and scientists? Not much. If I were to believe the official story, (which I don't) I would have also completely lost confidence in our military and our national defense. Protocol was not followed. Those planes should have never gotten near their targets if someone had not intervened and given orders to stand down. No, I believe we have a good military. It is the commander and Chief and his administration (Bush-Cheney) that is to blame for 9-11. If this is not true, then our military is incompetent, our structural engineers are incompetent, and our high rise buildings are vulnerable to planes, fires etc. Three Excellent Posts there Jeannie. I doubt if any of them will be addressed for their content  
|
|
|
|
|
