NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

kylebisme said:
[qimg]http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/7572/moltensteelclose0yl.jpg[/qimg]
There could be some aluminum in that among other things, but the color alone shows the molten material temperature is far beyond the melting point of aluminum, and the even the cooler part of the beam is sagging like putty, so it's obviously at least in part molten steel.
Click to expand...

Sagging like putty? Wow, putty has straight edges and nice square corners.....
 
cmatrix said:
If you knew more about physics than I do you would be able to explain what and why what I said was incorrect. The fact that you can only muster issuing pompous unsupported pronouncements instead of sound criticism suggests that you are the one who is severely deficient.
Click to expand...

Hasn't Dave Rogers ( physicist BTW) explained this to you numerous times?

I think Mackey has too.

And some others.

And yet, you're still incapable of learning.
 
cmatrix said:
Just to clarify - progressive collapses requires GPE. A free falling building has no GPE available to do such work because all available GPE has been converted to kinetic energy. The crackpot theory you believe in violates the laws of physics since it requires far more energy than could possibly have been available.
Click to expand...


You've said something like this before and it's not any less retarded in reruns.
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
ROFL I'm not saying the collapse violated the laws of physics I'm saying the crackpot theory you believe in violates the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

...and THAT, in turn, means you are saying the collapse defines the laws of physics... read what you just posted, matrix, and test your comprehension skills pal!
 
dc1971 said:
I'm not sure if it was photoshopped or it was decreased to a lower resolution then re-sized to a higher resolution. Either way, it's bad!
Click to expand...

Here's another pic from the same photographer, an iron worker named Frank Sillechia.

original

"color adjusted"

Looks like it might be rebar that is cherry red, not molten.

If you ever used an oxy-acetylene torch Kyle you'd understand the difference. I'll use a torch to get a part cherry to help loosen stuck bolts and such. If I melted it, the part would be scrap metal. (duh)
 
cmatrix said:
That's where you're wrong. I do have evidence. NIST admits there was free fall. They also state that right before the free fall all support was removed by progressive collapse. This means GPE took out the supports when no GPE could have been available. Their crackpot theory that you believe in without question clearly violates the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
???

Does anyone understand cmatrix? I think you have no idea what physics is? You use crackpot physics to make up idiotic claims, and you love calling NIST's work crackpot theories. Where is your paper with your differential equations, the engineering work to prove your claim?
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Wrong. NIST said that the damage did not effect the collapse. HOWEVER, if the damage hadn't been done, most likely fires would not have been started in 7WTC.

Go back and read it again.



You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just fell at FFA.



And yet, not a single beam from the WTC towers (ANY of them) showed this type of damage.

And yet, not one of the dozens of dogs in and around the WTC complex picked up on this therm*te.

Still, not one of those contraptions could have been attached and NOT been noticed.

Lastly, they used a VERY small beam in comparison to the WTC towers.

Go back and try again.
Click to expand...

Wrong? You just agreed with me that NIST stated that the minor damage to WTC 7 was in no way responsible for its collapse and you think I'm wrong? I guess that explains a lot. Oh and you still have no evidence whatsoever that fires caused WTC 7 to collapse, just faith and pseudo-science. Go back and read it again.

"not a single beam from the WTC towers (ANY of them) showed this type of damage." Prove it. Do you have all the beams from WTC 7 or even photos of them all? Oh right, they were all removed immediately and recycled. Not suspicious at all, well to crackpots anyway.

"not one of the dozens of dogs in and around the WTC complex picked up on this therm*te." There is no mention of any dogs at WTC 7 and anyway dogs can't smell through air-tight containers.

"not one of those contraptions could have been attached and NOT been noticed." You faith is commendable but I require evidence. Oh and your argument from incredulity is duly noted.

"they used a VERY small beam in comparison to the WTC towers." Actually he used beams identical to the WTC 7 perimeter columns, which is what this thread is all about remember?

Go back and try again.
 
triforcharity said:
NIST explains how the collapse occured.

Do I need to quote it exactly for you and walk you through it step by step?
Click to expand...

NIST explained nothing. They proclaim what happened but provide no evidence whatsoever that it really did happen that way. They certainly did not explain the free fall period. None of the debunksters here have either. Again all you have is faith and pseudo-science.
 
triforcharity said:
Hasn't Dave Rogers ( physicist BTW) explained this to you numerous times?

I think Mackey has too.

And some others.

And yet, you're still incapable of learning.
Click to expand...

Well I'm certainly incapable of learning the kind of BS Rogers, Mackey and other regularly spew.
 
dc1971 said:
...and THAT, in turn, means you are saying the collapse defines the laws of physics... read what you just posted, matrix, and test your comprehension skills pal!
Click to expand...

Ah so for you theory and reality are the same thing. That really explains a lot. Keep up the faith.
 
cmatrix said:
Wrong? You just agreed with me that NIST stated that the minor damage to WTC 7 was in no way responsible for its collapse and you think I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

No, it said it added no significant bearing on the collapse. It collapsed with or without the damage.


cmatrix said:
I guess that explains a lot. Oh and you still have no evidence whatsoever that fires caused WTC 7 to collapse, just faith and pseudo-science. Go back and read it again.
Click to expand...

Just science, and engineering reports, and more facts.....

cmatrix said:
"not a single beam from the WTC towers (ANY of them) showed this type of damage." Prove it. Do you have all the beams from WTC 7 or even photos of them all? Oh right, they were all removed immediately and recycled. Not suspicious at all, well to crackpots anyway.
Click to expand...

The ATF, FBI, and other state, national, and local LE agencies picked through EVERY piece of the rubble BY HAND. You don't think trained experts would be able to spot this type of damage?

You're foolish if you believe that.

I personally can look at a piece of metal, and tell you if it was cut with some type of device, or if it failed under stress. I've been teaching it for years.


cmatrix said:
"not one of the dozens of dogs in and around the WTC complex picked up on this therm*te." There is no mention of any dogs at WTC 7 and anyway dogs can't smell through air-tight containers.
Click to expand...

Wrong. And wrong. But hey, arguments from personal ignorance will get you far....:rolleyes:

cmatrix said:
"not one of those contraptions could have been attached and NOT been noticed." You faith is commendable but I require evidence. Oh and your argument from incredulity is duly noted.
Click to expand...

No, not "argument from incredulity". More like, "argument from facts and knowledge. The FBI, ATF, and other state, national, and local LE agencies went through the debris. You don't think they might find a device like those in the video suspicious? Horse****.


cmatrix said:
"they used a VERY small beam in comparison to the WTC towers." Actually he used beams identical to the WTC 7 perimeter columns, which is what this thread is all about remember?

Go back and try again.
Click to expand...

How does a perimeter column failure cause the interior of a building to collapse first? This would have been seen on any of the dozens of video of the 7WTC collapse. Why is this bright fireworks show missing from each and every one of them?
 
cmatrix said:
Well I'm certainly incapable of learning the kind of BS Rogers, Mackey and other regularly spew.
Click to expand...

Well, then it is your own ignorance that has prevented you from learning.

Go talk to a physics professor at any local college. Maybe they can explain why you're so very wrong.
 
dc1971 said:
I'm not sure if it was photoshopped or it was decreased to a lower resolution then re-sized to a higher resolution. Either way, it's bad!
Click to expand...

Molten iron isn't translucent.
 
cmatrix said:
...no evidence whatsoever...
Click to expand...

A full investigation supplemented by a 10,000 page report is "no evidence whatsoever"?? I'd like to know what your definition of EVIDENCE IS then??

cmatrix said:
They certainly did not explain the free fall period.
Click to expand...

Because free fall didn't occur!

cmatrix said:
None of the debunksters here have either. Again all you have is faith and pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror, cmatrix!!
 
How's this for showing all available PE is immediately converted to KE the moment an object begins to fall:
Click to expand...

From your own source:
"As the object falls and accelerates due to the earth's gravity, PE is converted into KE. When the object strikes the ground, h=0 so that PE=0, the all of the energy has to be in the form of KE and the object is moving it at its maximum velocity. (In this case we are ignoring air resistance)."

Your earlier claim:
Just to clarify - progressive collapses requires GPE. A free falling building has no GPE available to do such work because all available GPE has been converted to kinetic energy
Click to expand...

Yes you are fabricating your own laws by modifying existing, real ones. That is a no-no
 
cmatrix said:
Ah so for you theory and reality are the same thing. That really explains a lot. Keep up the faith.
Click to expand...

Please,please,please go and learn some basic physics.You are making a fool of yourself,it is really sad to witness it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom