Gage's next debate

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #15

You guys are making my job sooooo easy!

Another Gage quotes from my debate: "NIST chose to ignore or obfuscate the sulfidized steel."

My first hypothesis was that NIST didn't spend much energy on this because there was no evidence that small amounts of sulfidized steel contributed to the collapse. True? Did NIST "obfuscate" the sulfidized steel issue or just spend little time on it because it didn't help them answer the question of what caused the collapses?

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #16

"NIST never acknowledged evidence of implosion as quoted by FEMA." This Gage quote from our debate relates to Building 7, I think. Again, the whole collapse sequence NIST proposed sounds like the description of a building imploding structurally with internal supports giving way first. What did FEMA say and does anyone know what Gage is talking about here?

 

[funk de fino]

You guys are making my job sooooo easy!

Another Gage quotes from my debate: "NIST chose to ignore or obfuscate the sulfidized steel."

My first hypothesis was that NIST didn't spend much energy on this because there was no evidence that small amounts of sulfidized steel contributed to the collapse. True? Did NIST "obfuscate" the sulfidized steel issue or just spend little time on it because it didn't help them answer the question of what caused the collapses?

Do you mean the part from WTC7 or the part from one of the Twins? The part from one of the Twins had quite a bit of time spent on it as was sent externally for further examination.

 

[triforcharity]

You guys are making my job sooooo easy!

Another Gage quotes from my debate: "NIST chose to ignore or obfuscate the sulfidized steel."

My first hypothesis was that NIST didn't spend much energy on this because there was no evidence that small amounts of sulfidized steel contributed to the collapse. True? Did NIST "obfuscate" the sulfidized steel issue or just spend little time on it because it didn't help them answer the question of what caused the collapses?

Short answer, yes.

The referred it to WPI for further study.

Prof. Sisson stated that this process took days. So, conclusion is: Didn't happen in the collapse.

 

[funk de fino]

"NIST never acknowledged evidence of implosion as quoted by FEMA." This Gage quote from our debate relates to Building 7, I think. Again, the whole collapse sequence NIST proposed sounds like the description of a building imploding structurally with internal supports giving way first. What did FEMA say and does anyone know what Gage is talking about here?

This is one of C7 nonsense claims. Just because FEMA used the term implosion and NIST did not. They used collapse. It is irrelevant. Nothing to do with evidence.

Gage is a stupid liar.

 

[NoahFence]

Chrismohr - in your correspondence with Gage, have you ever asked him how the collapse of 7 ties in with the rest of the day? It would seem it would HAVE to, if indeed it was part of some grand conspiracy.

 

[R.Mackey]

You guys are making my job sooooo easy!

Another Gage quotes from my debate: "NIST chose to ignore or obfuscate the sulfidized steel."

My first hypothesis was that NIST didn't spend much energy on this because there was no evidence that small amounts of sulfidized steel contributed to the collapse. True? Did NIST "obfuscate" the sulfidized steel issue or just spend little time on it because it didn't help them answer the question of what caused the collapses?

Short answer, yes.

The referred it to WPI for further study.

Prof. Sisson stated that this process took days. So, conclusion is: Didn't happen in the collapse.

Eh, nitpick. The answer is "no." FEMA referred it to WPI, but the WPI investigation was already underway before NIST even got involved.

NIST certainly did not "obfuscate" the sulfidized steel issue. They mentioned it expressly in NCSTAR1-3C, along with new geometric analysis that further demonstrates the sulfidization occurred post-collapse, and is therefore irrelevant for purposes of their study.

Now, that was for the WTC 1 and 2 investigation. For WTC 7 they didn't include anything new about it, simply because they can't. As explained in the text they have no way to locate individual bits of steel within the intact structure, ergo they cannot add anything to the work done at WPI.

One wonders what Gage expected them to say about it. Probably some crap about "thermate."

 

[Kent1]

You guys are making my job sooooo easy!

Another Gage quotes from my debate: "NIST chose to ignore or obfuscate the sulfidized steel."

My first hypothesis was that NIST didn't spend much energy on this because there was no evidence that small amounts of sulfidized steel contributed to the collapse. True? Did NIST "obfuscate" the sulfidized steel issue or just spend little time on it because it didn't help them answer the question of what caused the collapses?

NIST mentions both samples. Sample 2 had clearly no bearing on the collapse (was located no higher than the 53rd floor) and was in the prone position during the corrosive attack.

"Single Column K-16" on page 229 to page 233) (PDF page 279 -
283)
"Finally, as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53rd floor of the building, this degradation phenomenon had no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building ."


NIST also mentions sample 1 and why it was not used the the WTC 7 report

1. There’s no direct evidence that Sample 1 came from Building 7 at all
2. If it did, there’s no indication where Sample 1 was in the structure
3. It can’t be said with certainty if the corrosive attack happened before the collapse or after

However one should note that Jonathan Barnett feels otherwise regarding the building origin of sample 2.
Also see:
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/thermite/fema-steel/

(You can also scan back a few pages to see more of the debate) But either way all sources clearly do not point toward Thermite what so ever.

 

[triforcharity]

Eh, nitpick. The answer is "no." FEMA referred it to WPI, but the WPI investigation was already underway before NIST even got involved.

My bad. You're right....

 

[Christopher7]

So what if Mike wasnt. I never said he was.

That's what the topic was about.

He was there, he says it was a huge fire that would have brought down the building. He proves there were fires on the lower floors.

No, he was talking thru his hat. The final report said that there were no fires below floor 7 [NCSTAR 1A pg 19-21].

NIST Part IIC pg 21
Observed Fire Locations 11:30 am - 2:30 pm
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas

NCSTAR 1A pg 49
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Disbelief]

That's what the topic was about.

No, he was talking thru his hat. The final report said that there were no fires below floor 7 [NCSTAR 1A pg 19-21].

NIST Part IIC pg 21
Observed Fire Locations 11:30 am - 2:30 pm
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas

NCSTAR 1A pg 49
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.

Do you accept what the NIST report says on the scope of the fires? You do realize that WTC7 would have been one of the largest office fires in history (as in top 2 or 3, if not THE largest), correct?

 

[Christopher7]

This is one of C7 nonsense claims. Just because FEMA used the term implosion and NIST did not. They used collapse. It is irrelevant. Nothing to do with evidence.

Gage is a stupid liar.

im·plode (

m-pl

d

)v. im·plod·ed, im·plod·ing, im·plodes
v.intr. To collapse inward violently.

v.tr.1. To cause to collapse inward violently.
2. To demolish (a building) by causing to collapse inward.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implode

You see in others what you are yourself.

 

[Christopher7]

Do you accept what the NIST report says on the scope of the fires? You do realize that WTC7 would have been one of the largest office fires in history (as in top 2 or 3, if not THE largest), correct?

Incorrect.

The fires in WTC 7 were much less severe than most high rise building fires because there was no vertical spreading from floor to floor.

Although there was fire on 10 floors, the fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30 had burned out or been put out by the sprinkling system long before the fires on floors 8, 9, 11 and 13 were first observed.

Most important is the fire on floor 12 that supposedly started the collapse by thermally expanding the floor beams on floor 13 which supposedly pushed a girder off its seat.

The NIST L report clearly states that NIST has a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out before 4:45 p.m.

The photos in the final report bear that out.

 

[Disbelief]

Incorrect.

The fires in WTC 7 were much less severe than most high rise building fires because there was no vertical spreading from floor to floor.

Although there was fire on 10 floors, the fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30 had burned out or been put out by the sprinkling system long before the fires on floors 8, 9, 11 and 13 were first observed.

Most important is the fire on floor 12 that supposedly started the collapse by thermally expanding the floor beams on floor 13 which supposedly pushed a girder off its seat.

The NIST L report clearly states that NIST has a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out before 4:45 p.m.

The photos in the final report bear that out.

[qimg]http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6307/firesimphotographic2.jpg[/qimg]

Name a fire that was larger. Also, do the math for the amount of fire based on the NIST report. You are wrong.

 

[chrismohr]

Chrismohr - in your correspondence with Gage, have you ever asked him how the collapse of 7 ties in with the rest of the day? It would seem it would HAVE to, if indeed it was part of some grand conspiracy.

Noah,

Building 7 had all those CIA files and information on Wall Street activities, but Gage doesn't talk publicly about that stuff much. He focuses his talks on his belief that controlled demolition caused the destruction of the three buildings. Once people get into that belief, they can conjecture together.

 

[Christopher7]

Noah,

Building 7 had all those CIA files and information on Wall Street activities, but Gage doesn't talk publicly about that stuff much. He focuses his talks on his belief that controlled demolition caused the destruction of the three buildings. Once people get into that belief, they can conjecture together.

Asking for speculation is just a way to avoid talking about the evidence and any response is invariably met with a rousing round of childish insults.

As shown above, the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m. For further details you can visit:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Therefore, it did not start the collapse at 5:20 p.m.

 

[beachnut]

Asking for speculation is just a way to avoid talking about the evidence and any response is invariably met with a rousing round of childish insults.

As shown above, the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m. For further details you can visit:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Therefore, it did not start the collapse at 5:20 p.m.

Truth Phalanx? lol, Is there any conclusion past bashing NIST? What is your conclusion? WTC 7 means what for 911. Nothing. When a building burns all day with out water, without fire fighting efforts, it will be destroyed, useless, and can collapse. Your effort has failed, you can't even say what your work means. You never will be correct until you grasp fire and gravity collapse, and the terrorists are solely responsible. Conclusion? You don't have one? You can't say?

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST’s misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

Political claptrap. What are you going to do? Nothing. You and Gage are fraud if you think WTC was CD. You will never get past bashing NIST. Why have you guys failed to make progress? Gage is making money pushing delusions, what do you get? Failure?

Truth Phalanx? Wow, with this statement over at your Truth Phalanx, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. A failed paper at Truth Phalanx?

Do you help Gage? Where do you sit in the hierarchy of 911 truth fraud, the entire movement is nonsense with no evidence, do you get paid?

This is nonsense

A Compilation of Research By Chris Sarns on World Trade Center 7′s Mysterious Collapse

It is not a mystery a building collapsed after burning all day, no water, no fire fighting. The mystery is how you come up with CD. Get a better title. Why zero in on WTC 7, when you have Flt 77, Flt 93, and more?

 

[funk de fino]

That's what the topic was about.

I was giving the guy some extra information about who was in the building. An engineer. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot post. That would be the moderators job.

No, he was talking thru his hat. The final report said that there were no fires below floor 7 [NCSTAR 1A pg 19-21].

You are calling Mike Catalano a liar? I think you need to figure out what reported or confirmed means. We now have reports of fires below floor 7.

NIST Part IIC pg 21
Observed Fire Locations 11:30 am - 2:30 pm
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas

NCSTAR 1A pg 49
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.

I never said the diesel played a part and neither did Mike Catalano. Reading comprehension fail again. I think you need to remember what this statement is and how it was taken. And you just debunked your own post. Well done.

 

[funk de fino]

im·plode ([qimg]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/qimg]m-pl[qimg]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif[/qimg]d[qimg]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/qimg])v. im·plod·ed, im·plod·ing, im·plodes
v.intr. To collapse inward violently.

v.tr.1. To cause to collapse inward violently.
2. To demolish (a building) by causing to collapse inward.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implode

You see in others what you are yourself.

I have bolded the relevant words you are getting confused about.

 

[funk de fino]

Incorrect.

The fires in WTC 7 were much less severe than most high rise building fires because there was no vertical spreading from floor to floor.

Although there was fire on 10 floors, the fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30 had burned out or been put out by the sprinkling system long before the fires on floors 8, 9, 11 and 13 were first observed.

Most important is the fire on floor 12 that supposedly started the collapse by thermally expanding the floor beams on floor 13 which supposedly pushed a girder off its seat.

The NIST L report clearly states that NIST has a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out before 4:45 p.m.

The photos in the final report bear that out.

[qimg]http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6307/firesimphotographic2.jpg[/qimg]

I think you will find there were fires on more that 10 floors. Stop using the NIST L. It is dishoinest. The final report has a picture with a later fire on that floor.