The usual bunch is not happy with WTC 7 report, suggest revision

[Christopher7]

What factors were considered in the AE911truth model in the process of modeling the fires? Was their model based solely upon pictures and other visual media? Or did they consider a combination of the visual and fuel loads as well as other contributing factors? I'd like to compare them with the considerations taken into account by NIST's models.

Fuel loads were consistent throughout the east end.

 

[beachnut]

Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 was a CD when he saw the 5 second clip, so did I, so have millions of others. It's bloody obvious. Danny was not confused, he was convinced. He is an expert, you are not. You are in denial. WTC 7 fell straight down very fast. To say "it doesn't look like a CD" makes the person saying that look like an idiot.

fast? lol, the interior was falling over 8 seconds before the facade fell. 7 years, you would think a few truthers would have a Pulitzer Prize by now with all their knowledge and evidence. Not straight at all, it was chaos. So now you push a lie of fast falling building.

- you were debunked 7 years ago

Debunked 7 years ago.

fast? lol, the interior fell over 8 seconds before the facade fell.
7 years, you should have a Pulitzer Prize; but you have no evidence, just a failed ideas from ignorance on all things related to WTC7.

How can a fall be straight, when it was not? The falling interior debunks that dim idea.

Why do the idiots in 9/11 truth ignore the interior failing over 8 second before the facade falls.

Only you, 9/11 truth and Dan Rather say CD out of ignorance. At least you identify your fantasy right up front.

 

[beachnut]

I can't speak for AE911truth, ...

It appears that AE911truth ...

You and A&E are armed with the same evidence; Zero.

Good job, so far you have proven A&E have no real conclusion on 9/11. Just like you. This is based solely on your massive evidence.

I would make a comment on your presented material. However, you posted no rational material. There must be something you will get right if you post enough. Good work, great posts so far, at least you are supporting something that other terrorist apologist can appreciate and not understand anyway.

Seriously, do you have some real issues, or are you just using the failed ideas of A&E?

 

[DC]

Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of experts in the field of controlled demolition when exposed to mre than 5 seconds of the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

here the long version of the interview with a CD expert

 

[beachnut]

Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of experts in the field of controlled demolition when exposed to mre than 5 seconds of the video?

CD and WTC7, proof 9/11 has no evidence, no real clue what happen. No understanding of the NIST report, no credible critique based on knowledge related to the report. If 9/11 truth actually spews some engineering terms, it may fool some idiots who are about to join the evidence free hearsay pundits, those apologist for terrorist, 9/11 truth.

How can they still be using the doltish idea of CD after 7 years; debunked on 9/11! Pathetic

 

[ref]

Christopher Sarns is the carpentry remodeling contractor (from Stockton I think) and not of concrete and three inch rebar fame

ChristopherA (Christopher Alfred Brown) of concrete core and rebar
is the excavator / laborer/ equipment operator. Who has a strange collection of HTML files about events in his life here
http://algoxy.com/psych/

Ok, thanks for the correction!

 

[ref]

I don't think you actually read the letter if you believe that. Two points out of about 35 cover issues that have been previously discussed here. They are the easiest for you to raise inane arguments against (probably arguments that were originally come up with by others), so those are what you chose to attack.

...

No, you seem to think it's all about thermite and foreknowledge. Again, those were TWO out of about 30 or so different points raised.

I just wanted to come back to this once more. You say thermite and foreknowledge are only 2 points out of 30 or 35. You belittle them and make it seem like these topics are not even the main points of the letter.

But let's see the bigger picture, shall we. These guys knew they had to have something against NIST. They knew the NIST WTC 7 report was going to be wrong, even before it was released. Heck, Gage even announced days earlier that he would conduct a phone conference immediately after the report's release to counter it.

So we agree that they had to get some concrete points in a hurry to counter the actual messages of the report, not just repeat the old messages they had repeated years without taking into account the new NIST findings. If they didn't raise some new points to counter the actual report, they would just look stupid (they still do).

Enter this paper.

We have criticism of fire simulations. About combustible fuel loadings. About structural response. About inconsistencies. I admit, some new points because they had to. Unlike them, I don't claim to be an expert on fire simulations (or claim that you don't even have to be in order to see NIST is wrong) or structural response, so I will wait comments from actual experts (as I have stated numerous times).

But what happens after these new points they have come up with, because they had to? Enter those 2 minor points of thermite and foreknowledge. Why are these important? Because this is what they actually believe happened. This is where they present their scenario and evidence they think supports for their views. And this is where they fail.

If foreknowledge is only 1 minor point out of 30, why did they dedicate one fifth (20%) of the letter's length to foreknowledge alone, with a total of 7 subpoints to prove this foreknowledge? Does not seem like a minor point!

What about thermite? This is what they come up with, when asked what they are suggesting caused the collapse instead of fire. It sure is important. It is the most important. And it is the point they make every time. Thermite is everything to their existence as a group and truthers. They have nothing else left. That's why I said it's still all about thermite.

This bunch may come up with their opinion why some part of the NIST report is wrong. But so may other people well more qualified, not driven by an agenda that has totally taken over their lives. If there are mistakes in the report we will hear sooner or later.

In the words of the Gage man: We're going to Denny's, we're looking for pancakes. We don't find any.

 

[zorro99]

Dr Wyndham

09/09/08
03:47:41 am, Categories: Voices, 1812 words
Dr. Wyndham’s Reply to NIST About Their WTC 7 Final Report
John D. Wyndham, PhD

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Sirs:

I have examined the documents¹ you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project.

However, like Ptolemy’s Theory of Epicycles, you begin with a faulty and unproven assumption. It is also the least likely assumption based on the evidence. Therefore, although your computer modeling may be intricate, your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply “adding epicycles” to a theory based on a false premise.

Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations:

1. There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours.
2. The building completely collapsed.

Observation 1 is not in dispute, except as to the location, extent, and effect of the fires. You never observed these fires from inside the building, and you have no actual measurements of the thermal expansion and deformation of the structural steel beams whatever. You never examined any of the steel.

Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.

Your consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios (Appendix D) is disingenuous, to say the least. You rule out a possible blast on the basis that it would have been audible, but was not reported. You consider only RDX and C4, which is RDX-based and known to be noisy. RDX has been in use since WWII and C4 reportedly has been used by terrorists. It is simply not believable that foreign terrorists could have gained unobserved access to WTC 7 before 9/11 (scenario 1) or during the 6 hour interval prior to its collapse (scenario 2). Why did you not consider the use of thermite, thermate, nano-thermites, and other state of the art materials? As shown by Kevin Ryan, NIST has extensive knowledge of and experience with the latter materials².

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-...9/09/dr_wyndhama_8217_s_reply_to_nist_about_t

Somebody want to take a stab at this?

 

[ref]

You only need to take a quick look at what zorro99 just posted to see the importance of thermite to their existence.

 

[Christopher7]

I don't claim to be an expert on fire simulations (or claim that you don't even have to be in order to see NIST is wrong)

You don't have to be an expert to see that the NIST simulations do NOT match the photos. This is easy for anyone to see. Look at the NIST simulation for 2:00 p.m. There are fires on the east face in the photo but not in the NIST simulation.​

 

[ref]

You don't have to be an expert to see that the NIST simulations that do NOT match the photos. This is easy for anyone to see. Look at the NIST simulation for 2:00 p.m. There are fires on the east face in the photo but not in the NIST simulation.
​

But it's also easy for you to see, that the simulation is for 2:00 p.m. with the fires moving towards the east face. The photo is taken at 2:10 p.m. You seem the know perfectly well how fires advance in 10 minutes time?

Btw, sorry for calling you Chris Sarns if you are not. My mix-up.

 

[Christopher7]

But it's also easy for you to see, that the simulation is for 2:00 p.m. with the fires moving towards the east face. The photo is taken at 2:10 p.m. You seem the know perfectly well how fires advance in 10 minutes time?

Not perfectly but the fires moved along the east face about 18 feet in 20 minutes or about 1 foot per minute.

The fire in the NIST 2:00 p.m. simulation is about 40 feet from the east wall.

NIST must have figured it the same way i did because they estimate the fire in the NE corner as being from about 3:20 to 3:40, which is to say, the fire started there about 3:20 and lasted about 20 minutes.

 

[ref]

Not perfectly but the fires moved along the east face about 18 feet in 20 minutes or about 1 foot per minute.

The fire in the NIST 2:00 p.m. simulation is about 40 feet from the east wall.

Not claiming any expertise, but doesn't the fire have an open corridor to advance the 40 feet in 10 minutes from the simulated position of 2:00 p.m. to the photo of 2:10 p.m.? Whereas along the east face there are office cubicles/rooms (I don't remember which and I can't access the reports now), so the further advance as seen from the windows would be slowed down? Don't you think it's possible for the fire to advance this 40 feet in 10 minutes in this corridor faster than a foot per minute towards the east face?

 

[ref]

Hm, damn. Are ChristopherA and Christopher7 the same person, or not? If not, is Christopher7 possibly Sarns?

Sorry if I'm totally confused over the Chrises. I have not followed either of them. I would love a clarification if someone can provide one.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hm, damn. Are ChristopherA and Christopher7 the same person, or not? If not, is Christopher7 possibly Sarns?

ChristopherA is Chris Brown IIRC. I have a feeling that answering the second question could be a breach of forum rules, although I know the answer, as it's a request to post personal information about a current member.

Dave

ETA: The two are certainly not the same person i.e. Christopher7 is clearly not a sock puppet of banned member ChristopherA.

 

[ref]

ChristopherA is Chris Brown IIRC. I have a feeling that answering the second question could be a breach of forum rules, although I know the answer, as it's a request to post personal information about a current member.

Dave

ETA: The two are certainly not the same person i.e. Christopher7 is clearly not a sock puppet of banned member ChristopherA.

I thought about the same thing about the rules, no need to answer that. The ETA part of your reply is enough, thanks. End of speculation

 

[Golden Bear]

I just wanted to come back to this once more. You say thermite and foreknowledge are only 2 points out of 30 or 35. You belittle them and make it seem like these topics are not even the main points of the letter.

I am not belittling them. I'm simply saying that the thermite and foreknowledge issues are, in fact, two out of many points raised against the NIST report. These are issues that have been hashed and re-hashed here probably hundreds of times, and it is pointless (but easy for you) to bring them up and attack them again.

But let's see the bigger picture, shall we. These guys knew they had to have something against NIST. They knew the NIST WTC 7 report was going to be wrong, even before it was released. Heck, Gage even announced days earlier that he would conduct a phone conference immediately after the report's release to counter it.

So we agree that they had to get some concrete points in a hurry to counter the actual messages of the report, not just repeat the old messages they had repeated years without taking into account the new NIST findings. If they didn't raise some new points to counter the actual report, they would just look stupid (they still do).

Yes, let's look at the bigger picture. NIST gave the public three (3) weeks to publicly comment on the Report in order to have the comments considered by NIST. If anyone was hurriedly getting together points to counter the NIST Report, it was EVERYONE who planned on commenting on it.

Also, I don't think they ever said they knew the new report was going to be wrong. They more likely suspected it was going to be wrong, and justifiably so based on past information released by NIST on the collapses.

I also get the impression you are somehow trying to criticize them for bringing up new points in an effort to avoid looking stupid. Here, I will merely note the fact that you are the one who raised no new points in your OP telling everyone over here about the usual bunch's comments. Do you now admit to looking stupid yourself?

Enter this paper.

We have criticism of fire simulations. About combustible fuel loadings. About structural response. About inconsistencies.

Yeah, no big deal. They were just criticizing the actual details of the NIST report. Move along. Nothing to see here. Forget the details. NIST's computer says fire caused the collapse. Nothing more is needed.

I admit, some new points because they had to.

Is this another attempt at criticism? You're criticizing them for raising new points? I suppose you would prefer them not raise any new points so you don't have to do any more thinking about the issue.

Unlike them, I don't claim to be an expert on fire simulations (or claim that you don't even have to be in order to see NIST is wrong) or structural response, so I will wait comments from actual experts (as I have stated numerous times).

If you look at the actual document, there are a number of engineers, including structural engineers, and other scientists that contributed. It seems to me that only a non-scientist would believe that only so called "experts" in a given field are able to understand fire (momentum, heat and mass transfer) and structural behavior (materials science, statics, dynamics, deformation). Virtually every engineering curriculum teaches concepts that apply to all other engineering curricula, and certainly all teach problem solving and ways of thinking that allow engineers of all different stripes to analyze engineering problems with which they don't have exactly on point relevant expertise. Electrical engineers take classes in strengths of materials and materials science. Chemical engineers take courses in electrical circuits. As such, pretty much all engineers have a "working knowledge" of most engineering concepts, certainly enough knowledge to converse with engineers of other disciplines. Of course, only an engineer would understand this, having lived through the experience. Most intelligent engineers should be able to pick up an engineering report written by an engineer of a different discipline and understand it, unless it involves special industry standard lingo. Even then, the engineer in question could do a little bit of outside research to see what the lingo is referring to and then easily understand the report. Again, only engineers can recognize this to be the case.

This argument also seems to me to be an ad hominem argument against these public comments, in the sense that it seeks to attack the comments by attacking the characteristics of the people making the comments. To make matters worse, you have indicated your intention to engage in an appeal to authority argument, but only after persons who you believe are authorities offer their comments.

But what happens after these new points they have come up with, because they had to? Enter those 2 minor points of thermite and foreknowledge. Why are these important? Because this is what they actually believe happened. This is where they present their scenario and evidence they think supports for their views. And this is where they fail.

Actually, this is where you fail. You have failed to understand the point of this document. It was intended to show how NIST manipulated its computer models so far beyond reality that they cannot be trusted, a point that was proven several times over. Again, if you actually read through the public comment document, you would realize that. The only section that deals with thermite and foreknowledge are at the very end, in a section about omissions from the report.

What about thermite? This is what they come up with, when asked what they are suggesting caused the collapse instead of fire. It sure is important. It is the most important. And it is the point they make every time. Thermite is everything to their existence as a group and truthers. They have nothing else left. That's why I said it's still all about thermite.

What about it? Even assuming the usual bunch is wrong about thermite, does that automatically mean NIST's black box computer model, which the usual bunch has clearly shown has no bearing on reality, is correct? You are trying to dance around the fact that you want to keep bringing up thermite because it's the easiest for you to comment on because you don't have to think. You offer no substance other than criticisms on thermite and foreknowledge. The usual bunch has offered a ton of substance besides the thermite and foreknowledge arguments. You can't address those, so you keep harping on the thermite. The usual bunch has actually addressed the new information that came out of NIST, and on an extremely short timescale. Doubtless, if given more time, they would have come up with even more points to raise.

This bunch may come up with their opinion why some part of the NIST report is wrong. But so may other people well more qualified, not driven by an agenda that has totally taken over their lives. If there are mistakes in the report we will hear sooner or later.

Hear about it from who? The JREFCJ High Command? Ryan Mackey? Gravy? Pomeroo? Are you just waiting for your marching orders before you become their cheerleaders and go around repeating what they come up?

The NIST Report is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Yes, there exists a body of evidence that NIST did not consider. However, the main point of the usual bunch's public comments is to criticize what was actually written in the new NIST report. And again, had you given it a fair reading, you would understand that.

 

[Christopher7]

Not claiming any expertise, but doesn't the fire have an open corridor to advance the 40 feet in 10 minutes from the simulated position of 2:00 p.m. to the photo of 2:10 p.m.? Whereas along the east face there are office cubicles/rooms (I don't remember which and I can't access the reports now), so the further advance as seen from the windows would be slowed down? Don't you think it's possible for the fire to advance this 40 feet in 10 minutes in this corridor faster than a foot per minute towards the east face?

Good point.
However
The fire was already going at 2:08:28 when this picture was taken which means it was visible on the east face a few minutes before.

The NIST simulation puts the fire in the offices just to the east of column 81.

 

[beachnut]

I'm simply saying that the thermite and foreknowledge issues are, ...

Total garbage, you entire post. Just talk. Wow

When you mention thermite you are just proving you are too ignorant on this topic and unable to make rational posts.

A&E still think thermite? They are nuts for even mentioning what Jones made up in 2005. 7 years and no clue.

All the holes and you can't present evidence to expose one. Talk and failed opinions are the hallmark of terrorist apologist who can't understand fire, engineering and many other topics needed to understand 9/11. Even the terrorist laugh at you, many have much more education and understanding of the issues involves. How sad beaten by terrorist now, 7 years after 9/11. Poor showing.


Present one hole in NIST that changes fire bringing down the towers and WTC, back it up with evidence and some engineering. You can't..

 

[Christopher7]

Present one hole in NIST that changes fire bringing down the towers and WTC, back it up with evidence and some engineering.

Here's a hole you can drive a truck through. Perhaps you missed it.