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

[Christopher7]

You think an office fire resembles a fire in an open space with no air movement? Collapsed floors, collapsing floors, broken windows can all cause interruptions to fire movement or change its direction entirely.

The beams and girders had a 2 hr fire rating. The fires burned for about 20 min an any given area. There is no reason to assume that there were collapsed floors.

NIST used case B (+10%) in their models. They did NOT give the results for case A (actual temps from another computer model) nor did they give the input data.
Not including the case A results is a delibrate obsfucation of the data.
This is unacceptable in a scientific report.

Also, why would I claim to be an expert? You don't think I would need to be one, therefor my considerations are just as valid as yours.

Good point.
Both points of view should be considered on their merit.

 

[Golden Bear]

Examples, please.

Examples:
1. This thread. Go read it from the beginning.
2. Virtually every single other thread on this site. Go read them.

Our experts are always wrong. Your experts are always right. That's just how it goes around here (in your mind, at least).

 

[Tbone]

Examples:
1. This thread. Go read it from the beginning.
2. Virtually every single other thread on this site. Go read them.

Our experts are always wrong. Your experts are always right. That's just how it goes around here (in your mind, at least).

Please give me specific posts.

 

[Golden Bear]

Please give me specific posts.

This one is only three pages. Go read it for yourself.

For one example, I said Danny Jowenko and Dan Rather both thought WTC 7 looked like a CD when they saw it on video tape. Someone immediately accused me of appeal to authority. Even when I said all I was trying to demonstrate is that people we can all agree are rational and sane have looked at WTC 7 on tape and said it looks like a CD, someone still said it was an appeal to authority.

Then, Chris tries to offer some analysis of the NIST report. He's not qualified because he's not an expert. But if he was an expert, then it would be an appeal to authority. And round and round we go.

In fact, all of the comments on the NIST report from the "usual bunch" are apparently being ignored because of the prevailing opinion here at JREFCJ that the usual bunch are not experts on this matter.

In every case the substance is ignored and stupid formal arguments are used as cover. In reality, you are unable to address the substance, and are trying to hide your inability to substantively respond.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

For one example, I said Danny Jowenko and Dan Rather both thought WTC 7 looked like a CD when they saw it on video tape. Someone immediately accused me of appeal to authority. Even when I said all I was trying to demonstrate is that people we can all agree are rational and sane have looked at WTC 7 on tape and said it looks like a CD, someone still said it was an appeal to authority.

Err... pointing to Dan Rather is indeed an appeal to authority. A very, very strange one at that...

Also, please tell me you understand what a simile is...

 

[Miragememories]

Interesting. One does not need to be an expert on fire behaviour to understand it properly, apparently.

How expert do you have to be to justify getting concerned, when empiric
evidence is in serious disagreement with the official findings?

A number of prominent individuals, individuals usually respected here, have
publicly stated they have serious problems with the final written argument
made by NIST.

After years of study, NIST makes their final claim, that office furniture fueled fires, alone,
were the cause of the "heat expansion", which NIST determined was the initiating mechanism
for the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

And you have to be an expert to question that?

MM

 

[stateofgrace]

How expert do you have to be to justify getting concerned, when empiric
evidence is in serious disagreement with the official findings?

A number of prominent individuals, individuals usually respected here, have
publicly stated they have serious problems with the final written argument
made by NIST.

After years of study, NIST makes their final claim, that office furniture fueled fires, alone,
were the cause of the "heat expansion", which NIST determined was the initiating mechanism
for the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

And you have to be an expert to question that?

MM

Which you clearly are not.

MM,do everybody a favour and rather then posting tantalising glimpses of your problem with the NIST report can you please start a new thread and show us all exactly what your problem is?

 

[beachnut]

Can fire do this to steel? Not for truthers, steel is so strong.

Short span sagging, what would long span sagging do? Oh, WTC7. Fire ruins the doltish ideas of the best and worse truthers. Not one piece of evidence for CD, and nothing to refute NIST, or that fire did it. After 7 years the truth movement could have all got PhD in structures, but they chose to remain in ignorance and make up false ideas based on no evidence.

No real threat to fire doing in WTC7 with this poorly prepared group of terrorist apologists. When do terrorist apologist become terrorist loyalist? Why are they so bad at this 9/11 truth bit? Not one single valid point. Why does hearsay and lies become evidence to truthers?

I disagree with NIST! Fire did it! Fire was responsible! There, I stood up to NIST, and I a right. I was right on 9/11; right for 7 years. What, NIST said fire did it? nevermind…

9/11 truth wrong for 7 years and counting. The worse movement in history for solving problems. So far pure fantasy is their only product. 7 years

 

[Tippit]

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..

I've been a member of the JREF forum for quite some time, and I have to say, I haven't seen anything original or thoughtful in any of your posts. They are all filled with bile, insults, and substance-free denial. Most JREFers are abusive, dishonest, and dogmatic, but you take the cake.

Editing to remove the part that addresses the member, not the post. However, there's a fine line being walked here by some, and I'd advise all participants to keep their language civil, and a little less inflammatory, even if addressing the post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7, there were pressure differences and internal flows.

How much 'pressure difference' can there be in a building?
Internal flows of what? air? Yes, fire will draw in air and expanding gasses will find a way out as a fire progresses.

How can you say how the fire behaved under those conditions and say NIST is definitely wrong? The fires could go back and forth, not just linear and exactly timed progress around the building.

In a pigs eye. Fires don't burn back and forth, forsooth, they burn only forth.

And there were internal fires not visible from the windows. Even NIST says that it was difficult to develop detailed timelines for burning on the four faces of the building.
Even if they were off a little with their timeline, do you disagree with their overall theory? The column 79 and fire theory?

They were way off on their time line. The 2:00 p.m. graphic is off by about 1/2 hour, the 3:00 p.m. graphic is off by an hour, the 4:00 p.m. graphic bears NO resemblance to the photo and the 5:00 p.m. graphic has wide spread fires despite the FACT that the NIST Apx. L report states that the fires on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

You can tap dance and spin all you want but you can SEE the fires in the 5:00 p.m. photo. You can READ the NIST Appendix L report.

This is not 'off by a little bit'. This is blatant FALSE information. This is FRAUD!

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg

 

[jhunter1163]

What on earth is JREFCJ supposed to stand for in your posts? I've noticed that you've used it a couple of times.

This means "JREF Circle Jerkers". Another sign of the maturity level of Golden Bear.

 

[MaGZ]

NIST doesn't make that claim but nice try. The transformers were on floors 5 or 6.
The fire on floor 12 started about where they pictured it, cause unknown.

I still think one of these transformers exploded on 5th or 6th floor which would explain why Jennings thought the explosion came beneath him.

Also, I am convinced this happened a 9:03.

Question for electrical experts here:
Could the crash of the second plane into WTC 2 cause the electric grid to explode a transformer in WTC 7 approximately at the same time?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You can tap dance and spin all you want but you can SEE the fires in the 5:00 p.m. photo. You can READ the NIST Appendix L report.

This is not 'off by a little bit'. This is blatant FALSE information. This is FRAUD!

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg

Yes, put it in giant bolded letters THAT CAN BE EASILY READ UNTIL TRUE, KEEP REPEATING UNTIL TRUE ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

Interestingly... the AE911 truth model looks like its modeled entirely on exterior observations of fire, it makes no effort to model the spread of fire on the interior of the building. It's disgraceful that you people are only capable of analyzing thing in one dimension, not surprising however given the other errors AE911 truth makes for their controlled demolition evidence

 

[beachnut]

I've been a member of the JREF forum for quite some time, and I have to say, I haven't seen anything original or thoughtful in any of your posts. They are all filled with bile, insults, and substance-free denial. Most JREFers are abusive, dishonest, and dogmatic, but you take the cake. You also seem to have some sort of mental impairment that prevents you from writing complete sentences. In any case, your mentality pretty much exemplifies most of the so-called skeptics on this forum, albeit extremely, and that's a shame.

The post was garbage. You must not have any knowledge on the subject areas.

Thermite was made up 4 years after 9/11 due to extreme bias. Thermite, one of the dumbest ideas on 9/11. Is your passive support of terrorist apologists intended, or due to lack of knowledge?

Truth movement spews hearsay about holes in the study. They produce zero evidence to support it. You seem to be lacking the same evidence. Why?

Why are you void of engineering skills to attack pure ignorance, lies, false information, and fantasy? Your posts on 9/11 have never risen to the level of knowledge or evidence that require any skill to refute.

I know the terrorist apologist have nothing, you sit on the sidelines and expose my poor writing. Thank you very much…

Your knowledge on 9/11 is nil; your past post prove this point. Thanks for pointing out my known failure; if only you had the same insight into 9/11 issues.

What is your beef with the WTC7 report?

 

[leftysergeant]

Are you really serious?

What mechanism would allow and encourage fires to return without the addition of more office furniture as fuel?

MM

Flash-over.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How much 'pressure difference' can there be in a building?
Internal flows of what? air? Yes, fire will draw in air and expanding gasses will find a way out as a fire progresses.
In a pigs eye. Fires don't burn back and forth, forsooth, they burn only forth.

They were way off on their time line. The 2:00 p.m. graphic is off by about 1/2 hour, the 3:00 p.m. graphic is off by an hour, the 4:00 p.m. graphic bears NO resemblance to the photo and the 5:00 p.m. graphic has wide spread fires despite the FACT that the NIST Apx. L report states that the fires on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

You can tap dance and spin all you want but you can SEE the fires in the 5:00 p.m. photo. You can READ the NIST Appendix L report.

This is not 'off by a little bit'. This is blatant FALSE information. This is FRAUD!

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg

Hope you do not mind if I laugh at you now, fires burn only where there is fuel and oxygen.

Oxidants and fuels are the key elements in fire behavior, as some one who has been trained in fire behavior I understand that fires sometimes produce random patterns, be causes of random distribution of fuels, and random air currents providing oxidation.

For instance fires burn faster up wards than down wards, and flammable liquids can spread fire faster that flammable solids because they can flow.

Combustion is a chemical process, and Chemical processes can be random, Unless you know the exact specifics of the fire, all you can do is make random guesses on fire spread!

 

[MaGZ]

I've been a member of the JREF forum for quite some time, and I have to say, I haven't seen anything original or thoughtful in any of your posts. They are all filled with bile, insults, and substance-free denial. Most JREFers are abusive, dishonest, and dogmatic, but you take the cake. You also seem to have some sort of mental impairment that prevents you from writing complete sentences. In any case, your mentality pretty much exemplifies most of the so-called skeptics on this forum, albeit extremely, and that's a shame.

I agree with your comments on Beechnut and most members of this forum.

 

[SDC]

This from our leading Holocaust denier and Nazi-admiring Pimpf. I think that pretty well establishes the case.

If you have Magz on your side, you know you're wrong. By the way, Tippit, I think you will now find him trying to recruit you. Step carefully through the muck.

 

[bonkey]

WTC 7 looks like a CD.

If I might ask....exactly what >40-storery buildings which were taken down by CD are you comparing this to, in order to reach the initial conclusion that it looks like CD?

The only buildings of that scale which I'm aware of which were taken down by Controlled Demolition were done so by deconstructing the building from the top down, and I'm pretty certain you're not saying that it looked like that.

If you'd like to compare it to smaller buildings which have been brought down by explosives, then I'm curious as to whether or not you can explain why the demolition industry don't use explosives on those few buildings of this height which need demolition, despite using it on smaller buildings, if - as your claim implicitly suggests - the collapse behaviour would be the same.

Additionally, if you could explain why you can say it looks like CD, but require it to be a form of CD which has never been witnessed (i.e. a non-stripped building, and no blast effects such as seismic footprint), that would be great.

I ask these questions because it seems that you're saying that this looks a like a regular controlled demolition, if we ignore all the aspects which are different. Another way of saying this is that it doesn't look like (regular) controlled demolition, but rather like what we could imagine some sort of unsual, never-before-seen controlled demolition might look like.

 

[jhunter1163]

Has anyone ever tried to calculate how much explosive would be required to bring down a non-stripped 47-story building?

And how loud would the resulting explosion be? My instinct is that you could probably hear it from Boston, but I'm not a trained demolition guy.