Gage's next debate

[Christopher7]

"by 5:20 PM all the fires were extinguished".

That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?

 

[beachnut]

No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.

What plausible options?
ETA: You keep saying that but you have not provided any plausible options.

Thinking up reasons to believe that what clearly looks like a CD is not a CD demonstrates a desire not to believe the obvious.

The primary mover used in CD is gravity. Physics is required; got physics?

CD looks like a gravity collapse, I have physics you have, your opinion. Good luck collecting the Pulitzer Prize, don't think there is a category for what your claims is. On track for 10 years of failure, and eternal failure if you insist on keeping anti-intellectual claims of CD based on zero evidence.

What did CBS say?
What did 20/20 say?
When is 48 hours covering your discovery of woo?

Why has Gage failed to break through to reality? Gage is making money selling lies; what a nice guy.

 

[DGM]

That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?

But the video you posted states "extinguished". You wouldn't post videos with known errors, would you?

 

[ozeco41]

Should we add "and I can't come up with a plausible reason anyone would do this in the first place"?

Don't "add it" - just leave it in -- I had that aspect covered in my original comment that we are following up. See the bold italic bit:

...However the strategic - or "why do it" arguments plus the stronger "it could not be achieved without discovery" AND "it was ridiculously close to impossible" arguments carry the day for me. That is "no demolition".

(the Aussie response here would be to call me a "Smart arse" )

 

[funk de fino]

So the same old people are still deceptively using the NIST L instead of using the full report? You are wasting your time with C7 gents.

 

[BasqueArch]

That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?

Did you know that once the Fire on floor 12 expanded the floor beams and pushed the girders off their column seats, the column lost bracing? And that once the Fire on floor 12 had burned out, the column remained unbraced?

 

[chrismohr]

Hi all, a couple things: my view of the freefall collapse is evolving nicely. I'll post it for critiques when I finish the first draft, before tagging it to the end of my Richard Gage debate.

At this point the one way I agree with Chris is to say, "Don't just blow off free fall of Building 7." But looking at it as a case of zero net resistance, I think a reasonable explanation can be made. Since I gave over 100 reasons NOT to accept controlled demo as a workable hypothesis in my debate, we'll see how my first draft hypothesis of natural freefall collapse (really, a boiled down summary of the help I got here from both sides) flies.

 

[NoahFence]

That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?

North face?

How about relating what we saw on the SOUTH side? The one engulfed in flames practically from top to bottom? You can actually see this in the video you provided.

 

[Christopher7]

Did you know that once the Fire on floor 12 expanded the floor beams and pushed the girders off their column seats, the column lost bracing? And that once the Fire on floor 12 had burned out, the column remained unbraced?

I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

 

[dc1971]

I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

Evidence?

 

[DGM]

I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

What report did you read?

 

[Animal]

I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

Even if it had, so what? The damage was done.
Free hint, look up the term structural creep.

 

[DGM]

Even if it had, so what? The damage was done.
Free hint, look up the term structural creep.

Personal attacks are not allowed on the forum.

 

[Christopher7]

North face?

How about relating what we saw on the SOUTH side? The one engulfed in flames practically from top to bottom? You can actually see this in the video you provided.

That is incorrect. There were fires on floors 19, 22 29 and 31 at the south west corner but they burned out by about 1:00 PM. [NCSTAR 1A pg 19] The only other fire reported on the south face was on floor 12 near the center between 11:30 and 2:00 PM. [Part IIC pg 21] The smoke from WTC 6 was being drawn up the side of WTC 7 by a low pressure area caused by the breeze from the NW. [NCSTAR1-9 pg 118] The same phenomenon occurred at the NE corner. There were no fires above the 13th floor yet the smoke was drawn up the corner and there appeared to be fire on every floor. just like the SW corner.

This is the last part of the east end of floor 12 to burn and it was on fire at 3:15 and had burned out by about 3:45 PM.

Part IIC also contains the statement about the fire on floor 12 being burned out by about 4:45. [pg 22]
[FONT=&quot]http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf[/FONT]

 

[NoahFence]

To prove there was no fire on the South side of the building, you produce a photo of the East edge of the North face.

Okee doke.

 

[Christopher7]

Hi all, a couple things: my view of the freefall collapse is evolving nicely. I'll post it for critiques when I finish the first draft, before tagging it to the end of my Richard Gage debate.

At this point the one way I agree with Chris is to say, "Don't just blow off free fall of Building 7." But looking at it as a case of zero net resistance, I think a reasonable explanation can be made.

Only if you ignore the fact that the irregular buckling of the exterior moment frame provides resistance and Sunders acknowledgment that "[FONT=&quot]a free fall time would be an object that has [/FONT][FONT=&quot]no [/FONT][FONT=&quot]structural components below it[/FONT]."

The core columns pulling down on the floor beams pulled the exterior columns down but could not pull them at free fall acceleration because they provided resistance.
ETA: As can be seen in the collapse video captures and Figure 12-63
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1647/bucklingvnothing.jpg

Since I gave over 100 reasons NOT to accept controlled demo as a workable hypothesis in my debate, we'll see how my first draft hypothesis of natural freefall collapse (really, a boiled down summary of the help I got here from both sides) flies.

The fact that you thought of 100 reasons not to believe something clearly demonstrates a deep seated desire not to believe the obvious. The videos of WTC 7 collapse look like a CD and were it not for the ramifications no one would dispute that it was a CD.

* * * * *
The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over one half hour before the collapse. In other words, the NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse never started.

 

[TruthersLie]

irreducible delusion noted.

 

[triforcharity]

the collapse put the office fires out.

Really? You honestly believe that?

Horse ****.

 

[Christopher7]

I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

What report did you read?

All the NIST reports on WTC 7. In the final report the two time references are explained on pg 572 [1-9 Vol.2 pdf pg 234] The "collapse time" is 0.0 when the kink in the roof line of the east penthouse was observed. Figure 12-42 on pg 573 says floors 13 and 14 collapsed in the NE region 6.5 seconds before the kink in the east penthouse was observed.

 

[beachnut]

All the NIST reports on WTC 7. In the final report the two time references are explained on pg 572 [1-9 Vol.2 pdf pg 234] The "collapse time" is 0.0 when the kink in the roof line of the east penthouse was observed. Figure 12-42 on pg 573 says floors 13 and 14 collapsed in the NE region 6.5 seconds before the kink in the east penthouse was observed.

You should publish your findings of CD in a journal. Wow, 9 years and now we are going to find out the truth. When can you have your paper ready? How did they make silent explosives? Will Gage have you speak at his events, as his guest, like pay your travel expenses? This is terrific stuff. When will you take action?