Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[alienentity]

It's a sad and pathetic display of racism, bigotry, professional incompetence and dishonesty.

In other words, perfect qualifications for AE911Truth and the 'truth' mvmt in general.

 

[alienentity]

Tony, were you wrong when you wrote this: 'As for the number of dual citizens in high office or influential within the Bush administration on 911 there was I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Ari Fleischer, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Philip Zelikow. Michael Mukasey the current AG, is a dual citizen and was involved in handling 911 related disputes as a federal judge in New York. '

If so, do you retract this statement and do you retract your insinuation that Gravy is a dual citizen?
Or do you still believe that dual-citizen Jews were the chief architects of 9/11?

Just curious...

 

[carlitos]

This is very sad. These people are not well.

 

[Christopher7]

The whole hypothesis is supposition. They tried to get the evidence to fit their predetermined conclusion and they failed. Their computer model does not fall at FFA and it is folding up. They did not let it run and show the whole collapse because the folding up gets more severe.
Note that there is no horizontal collapse in the computer model. This is not even close to what they said happened.

There are a number of misrepresentations in C7's statements above

False

NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2, pp 599 - 600
'12.5.2 Aspects Following the Collapse Initiation

Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. the uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.

I have read that, so what? Their model does not do what the building actually did because a progressive collapse cannot fall at FFA.

So while C7 completely ignores most of the NIST data, focusing on a tiny aspect which he then misrepresents,

False

in fact NIST explain very carefully why the model does not look like the actual.

Their model cannot look like the collapse because a progressive collapse will fold up the way their model does. Bottom line Their model does not look anything like the actual implosion.

And yet, in another display of cognitive dissonance

You are talking to yourself here.

C7 claims simultaneously that the NIST fit their models artificially to match, and that their models don't match.

They tried but failed.

Your blind faith in your government is neither warranted nor wise.

 

[BigAl]

Their model cannot look like the collapse because a progressive collapse will fold up the way their model does. Bottom line Their model does not look anything like the actual implosion.
.

This model does.

Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc​

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If so, do you retract this statement and do you retract your insinuation that Gravy is a dual citizen?
Or do you still believe that dual-citizen Jews were the chief architects of 9/11?

Better question for you, Tony. Since it's been established that these men are not dual citizens and simply just jews, do you mean to imply that jews should be prohibited from government service?

 

[Christopher7]

I should point out that C7 is also completely incorrect in claiming that there is 'no horizontal collapse' in the model

You are willfully blind. There is no horizontal collapse in the collapse with debris damage:
The video without debris damage has a horizontal collapse:
[FONT=&quot]http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/WTC7_No_Debris_Impact_Damage.wmv

[/FONT]The video with debris damage does not:
[FONT=&quot]http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/WTC7_Debris_Impact_Damage.wmv

[/FONT]

 

[alienentity]

You are willfully blind. There is no horizontal collapse in the collapse with debris damage:

Wrong again.
12.5.2 clearly states that the models both displayed horizontal progression of buckling interior columns.
The only difference was in the duration of the progression - longer for the model with no debris damage.
'In the analysis with debris impact damage, the core framing damage on the W side resulted in a more rapid failure of the W interior columns in the last stages of horizontal progression'

Be careful calling someone blind when you haven't read the report. You're just plain wrong. Correct your mistakes please.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think asking these guys to correct mistakes in reading of the reports is being a bit too optimistic. C7 is stuck on NIST L like a magnet, and he still takes the in progress stuff out of context at that...

 

[Christopher7]

That is saying that NIST is incompetent.

That's saying that they made a mistake which was corrected in the final report, and quoting an admitted mistake to support a claim is cherry-picking.

It was a misrepresentation of an obvious and easily ascertained fact.

My point holds: the buckled structure provided negligible resistance as they say in their corrected report.

False. Negligible = zero in this case. FFA means NO structural resistance but there was structural resistance in the NIST model as Dr. sunder admitted in the tech report before he an NIST were caught misrepresenting the facts about FFA.

They had their computer model that showed the buckling which provided resistance as Dr. Sunder said.

If you are saying that the computer model proves that the structure provided resistance, you are trusting the computer model.

No, I'm stating that their computer model does what a progressive collapse would do. I don't believe the concept in the first place. The failure of a single column cannot cause the total collapse of a modern high rise and anyone who believes that crap is a few pickets shy of a fence.

 

[Christopher7]

I think asking these guys to correct mistakes in reading of the reports is being a bit too optimistic. C7 is stuck on NIST L like a magnet, and he still takes the in progress stuff out of context at that...

All statements made in all the reports can be referenced. Your accusation of taking things out of context is false.

 

[Christopher7]

12.5.2 clearly states that the models both displayed horizontal progression of buckling interior columns.

But the video with debris damage does not. Your literally blind faith in what this government report says is absolute, even when your eyes can see that the words and the video do not match.

 

[lapman]

It was a misrepresentation of an obvious and easily ascertained fact.

Lie. But then again you have no interest in the truth as shown below

False. Negligible = zero in this case. FFA means NO structural resistance

This part is true. To bad you haven't a clue what this means. Mindless blather about fictitious removal of support in 3..2..1

but there was structural resistance in the NIST model as Dr. sunder admitted in the tech report before he an NIST were caught misrepresenting the facts about FFA.

This is an absolute lie. There was no misrepresenting of anything. Since the entire collapse was not FFA, it was assumed that there was resistance during the entire collapse. Now, show that Sunder stated that there was resistance during the entire collapse AFTER they confirmed the FFA.

No, I'm stating that their computer model does what a progressive collapse would do. I don't believe the concept in the first place.

Of course you don't believe it. It is inconvenient to your fantasy, so you automatically discount it.

The failure of a single column cannot cause the total collapse of a modern high rise and anyone who believes that crap is a few pickets shy of a fence.

Since you have zero education, knowledge, experience, etc. in the design, building, or demolishing of buildings, your opinion is worthless. Since you lie and misquote to hold on to your fantasy, your credibility is zero. Anyone who believes in the mythical column removing nanothermite is just, delusional and completely bereft of the concept of reality.

 

[Christopher7]

There was no misrepresenting of anything. Since the entire collapse was not FFA, it was assumed that there was resistance during the entire collapse.

The whole bloody thing was a chain of assumptions ending with a video representation that does not match the progression described in the text or the actual collapse.

 

[beachnut]

All statements made in all the reports can be referenced. Your accusation of taking things out of context is false.

How does this support the delusions of Gage in the Debate? Did you get lost in the wrong thread? How do your delusions dovetail with Gage's failed claims? Where is your evidence, and why are you obsessed with NIST when you have no support from the engineering world?

When will you publish your work? And why have you and Gage failed to have success with presenting reality based claims? Why have you failed for over 8 years?

The failure of a single column cannot cause the total collapse of a modern high rise and anyone who believes that crap is a few pickets shy of a fence.

If you mean NIST's conclusion is wrong, then you have to prove they were wrong. You will have to make your own model. But the fact is fire destroyed WTC 7, and you are not qualified to show us why NIST could be wrong. Gage is in the same boat, you guys talk but your don't do! You have a delusion of CD. You continue to provide proof you don't understand models. ''

What do you have to support Gage? Why has he failed to make a point and remains a nut case in the engineering world? As in all his claims are nonsense and delusional from an engineering viewpoint.

 

[GlennB]

Note the word 'exterior' in the caption under the pictures. And take into account that it is a computer 'visualisation'.....Unless you think it means some other kind of exterior and some other kind of visualisation?

Check NIST NCSTAR1-9A Figs 4-43 to 4-48. There is a horizontal scale. The scale has been changed to amplify the horizontal movements. The diagrams are specifically not what we would expect to see with the naked eye.

 

[pgimeno]

It was a misrepresentation of an obvious and easily ascertained fact.

Which was thus corrected in the final report.

False. Negligible = zero in this case. FFA means NO structural resistance but there was structural resistance in the NIST model as Dr. sunder admitted in the tech report before he an NIST were caught misrepresenting the facts about FFA.

Admitting a mistake is to be "caught"? To be "caught" has a connotation of having lied. Prove they lied before making such an accusation.

You have STILL not proved that the resistance is zero and that the fall speed was FFA instead of FFA minus a negligible bit. No matter how many times you assert that, just asserting it again and again won't make it true.

No, I'm stating that their computer model does what a progressive collapse would do.

Their computer model does what one progressive collapse would do. The chaotic nature of a collapse prevents them from an exact simulation of the real conditions that induced the collapse.

I don't believe the concept in the first place. The failure of a single column cannot cause the total collapse of a modern high rise and anyone who believes that crap is a few pickets shy of a fence.

Noted that your only arguments are incredulity and an argument from intimidation.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.​

Ayn Randt, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 140.

All statements made in all the reports can be referenced. Your accusation of taking things out of context is false.

How do you call using a quotation from an admittedly erroneous sentence, then? The context here is that that was from the technical briefing prior to the public comments session that led precisely to the fixing of that mistake, among others.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I never put anyone on my ignore list. But C7 is almost the first. Yanking truthers chains and rubbing their noses in the truth is sometimes fun, but C7's well runs dry pretty quick.

All he does is repeat 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition, 2.25 seconds FFA = controlled demolition...ad infinitum.

He isn't a person, he's an automated script.

The guy who wrote him must be laughing at us.

 

[Christopher7]

Which was thus corrected in the final report.
Admitting a mistake is to be "caught"? To be "caught" has a connotation of having lied. Prove they lied before making such an accusation.

Point taken. Y'all should follow that advise and stop calling people liars when they make a mistake.

You have STILL not proved that the resistance is zero

Good grief. What part of "no" don't you understand?
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

and that the fall speed was FFA instead of FFA minus a negligible bit.

Negligible little bit is one tenth of one percent in this case. Clearly, too small to be considered. i.e. effectively zero

No matter how many times you assert that, just asserting it again and again won't make it true.

Your denying it won't make it untrue.

Their computer model does what one progressive collapse would do. The chaotic nature of a collapse prevents them from an exact simulation of the real conditions that induced the collapse.

It is nowhere close. The computer model does not include the described horizontal collapse and it does not look like the videos and it does not fall at FFA. But what the heck, that's close enough for government work, right?

 

[BigAl]

Point taken. Y'all should follow that advise and stop calling people liars when they make a mistake.

Good grief. What part of "no" don't you understand?
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Negligible little bit is one tenth of one percent in this case. Clearly, too small to be considered. i.e. effectively zero

Yes, the buckling of column 79 resulted in negligible support and the visible collapse at nearly free fall acceleration.

Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc​