Gage's next debate

[funk de fino]

We have covered this already. The simulations do NOT match the photographs or the narration of the progression of the fire on floor 12.

They said even without the fire that the building was suceptible to collapse on removal of column 79.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes. It's just an attempt to change the subject without acknowledging the point. Until you accept that NIST has not explained the collapse you will not entertain any other explanation so the question is just a diversion.

Bull.

I've come to grips that NIST is incorrect. So I'm asking - what DOES explain the collapse?

 

[oody]

I'm finally coming around to the broader view that the discussion is in large part a call to perfection on the NIST report. That's fine, and for $20 million one does expect perfection. Anyone who has worked in a large organization, though, knows that any large effort must go through division and re-integration of efforts, and at some point a snapshot of ongoing synthesis must be taken and time called on project end. Imperfections and points of contention will continue be identified as ever-larger magnifying glasses are placed on ever-smaller project components, and these will continue to bother some more than others.

Thanks for all the fish.

 

[Christopher7]

They said even without the fire that the building was suceptible to collapse on removal of column 79.

Which proves that their input data is skewed to make the building collapse. The failure of a single column cannot make a modern skyscraper collapse at all, much less in the manner that WTC 7 came down. If you believe that the failure of a single column can cause the total collapse of a modern skyscraper then you will believe anything the government says on blind faith.

NIST refuses to release the input data to be verified because they know it's skewed. The Bush administration was notorious for falsifying scientific reports to fit their political agenda and the NIST reports are no exception.

The NIST report is clearly fraudulent in that they said a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion so you should not accept their assertion that the failure of a single column could cause a total collapse.

Keep your opinion of me to yourself and deal with the reality that NIST has not explained the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

I've come to grips that NIST is incorrect. So I'm asking - what DOES explain the collapse?

Thank you for acknowledging that the NIST report did not explain the collapse.

However

This is still an attempt to change the subject and recite from the deniers playbook of reasons why it could not be a CD. Don't bother, I have heard them all many times.

If it was not a fire or a CD then what do you think caused the collapse?

ETA: Chris, will you man up and acknowledge that NIST did not explain the collapse and indeed committed fraud when they said that a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion?

 

[NoahFence]

The Bush administration was notorious for falsifying scientific reports to fit their political agenda and the NIST reports are no exception.

Having said that, you must have a readily available example...care to fill us in?

 

[NoahFence]

Thank you for acknowledging that the NIST report did not explain the collapse.

However

This is still an attempt to change the subject and recite from the deniers playbook of reasons why it could not be a CD. Don't bother, I have heard them all many times.

If it was not a fire or a CD then what do you think caused the collapse?

ETA: Chris, will you man up and acknowledge that NIST did not explain the collapse and indeed committed fraud when they said that a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion?

You are one stubborn fool.

Clearly, you have no idea. You and FEMR and MT, you're all gung ho to tell the masses that NIST is wrong, yet you can't actually prove it. It's foolish. Why do you people insist on completely ignoring people's questions, while at the same time demanding that they answer yours?

 

[Christopher7]

You and FEMR and MT, you're all gung ho to tell the masses that NIST is wrong, yet you can't actually prove it.

I have proved NIST wrong. You even admitted that NIST was incorrect.

I've come to grips that NIST is incorrect.

In regard to your other post:
[FONT=&quot]February 19, 2004[/FONT]
"More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

 

[Jono]

A collapse cannot progress if it does not begin and the NIST hypothesis does not provide a beginning.

Not sure what you mean, because in the several tested simulations there are specific causes and effects given. Surely you're familiar with the different tested scenarios yes?

You need to come to grips with the fact that NIST said the fire on floor 12 caused thermal expansion after it had burned out and that is fraud.

Fire causes thermal expansion, the impact of such an expansion can logically be delayed as very little needs to happen all at once or only immediately after a direct effect. And it's not as if the building stood or behaved spick n spam until it "suddenly" collapsed, 'cause that would be a false idea of what actually happend. Again, you must be familiar with this as well surely?

 

[NoahFence]

I have proved NIST wrong. You even admitted that NIST was incorrect.



In regard to your other post:
[FONT=&quot]February 19, 2004[/FONT]
"More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

My apologies - I misspoke.

What I meant to say was none of you can present any evidence that contradicts their conclusions - that fire and damage did the deed. Explosives were nowhere to be found.

 

[NoahFence]

In regard to your other post:
[FONT=&quot]February 19, 2004[/FONT]
"More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

Meaning what exactly? Really smart people think Bush and his administration were keeping stuff from us? That proves nothing about 9/11.

 

[Christopher7]

And there is your failure. You ASSUME that the buckling was immediate. The report you just quoted does not say that.

The buckling was immediate. I read the report an you have not.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 39 [pdf pg 81]
Floor 13 collapsed onto the floors below, causing a cascade of floor failures down to Floor 5. The floor failures left Column 79 laterally unsupported and it buckled, which was quickly followed by the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 572 [pdf pg 234]
[FONT=&quot]The collapse reference time of 0.0 s starts when a kink was observed in the roof line of the east penthouse, as viewed from the north.
[/FONT]Figure 12-42 on pg 573 says that the collapse of floors 13 and 14 occurred at -6.5 s [or 6.5 seconds before the kink in the east penthouse].

It was all one continuous collapse event - but it never took place because the fire that supposedly caused the thermal expansion that pushed the girder off its seat had gone out in that area over an hour earlier.

 

[Christopher7]

Not sure what you mean, because in the several tested simulations there are specific causes and effects given. Surely you're familiar with the different tested scenarios yes?

No. NIST had only one conclusion and that is the one we have been discussing.

Fire causes thermal expansion, the impact of such an expansion can logically be delayed as very little needs to happen all at once or only immediately after a direct effect.

According the the NIST hypothesis, it all happened in a continuous collapse. See my post above.

 

[Christopher7]

My apologies - I misspoke.

What I meant to say was none of you can present any evidence that contradicts their conclusions - that fire and damage did the deed. Explosives were nowhere to be found.

The point here is that the NIST hypothesis is incorrect as you admitted. Yet you still believe their conclusion despite the fact that they did not prove their hypothesis.

Whatever blows your skirt up.

People here deny any evidence of CD and then claim that there is none so there is no need for me to present it again.


There is no proof that fires brought down WTC 7, just a fraudulent report trying to prove a pre determined conclusion and failing to do so.


And still no word from Chris Mohr.

 

[Fly Poster]

Thank you for acknowledging that the NIST report did not explain the collapse.

However

This is still an attempt to change the subject and recite from the deniers playbook of reasons why it could not be a CD. Don't bother, I have heard them all many times.

If it was not a fire or a CD then what do you think caused the collapse?

ETA: Chris, will you man up and acknowledge that NIST did not explain the collapse and indeed committed fraud when they said that a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion?

Chris here is the problem I have: you claim that that fire had burnt out is probably incorrect, and could be the fire using up materials, and moving on. You claim that floor 12 had burnt out by 4:45pm, so I would need to see photos from all sides from around that time, and also need to hear a convincing argument that the fire could not have moved into the centre of the building, after using up the consumables nearest a fresh oxygen source (windows). I don't think you can provide either, so whilst you might be right, you are guessing.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....

ETA: Chris, will you man up and acknowledge that NIST did not explain the collapse and indeed committed fraud when they said that a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion?

I remember reading the NIST report a few moths ago that up to the time of collapse the 12th floor was on fire at the north side and around the failed column, and that the ceiling temperature around these areas was at 1,000C.

I'm not going to look it up, but if you, C7 find out you're wrong you're going to apologize for calling the NIST engineers "frauds" - right? It's the man-up thing to do.

 

[funk de fino]

Which proves that their input data is skewed to make the building collapse. The failure of a single column cannot make a modern skyscraper collapse at all, much less in the manner that WTC 7 came down. If you believe that the failure of a single column can cause the total collapse of a modern skyscraper then you will believe anything the government says on blind faith.

NIST refuses to release the input data to be verified because they know it's skewed. The Bush administration was notorious for falsifying scientific reports to fit their political agenda and the NIST reports are no exception.

The NIST report is clearly fraudulent in that they said a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion so you should not accept their assertion that the failure of a single column could cause a total collapse.

Keep your opinion of me to yourself and deal with the reality that NIST has not explained the collapse of WTC 7.

Prove it retired carpentter.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, will you man up and acknowledge that NIST did not explain the collapse and indeed committed fraud when they said that a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion?

Chris7 I'm not biting any more. The only thing any of us owe one another on this thread is not to be dishonest, not to swear, not to do stuff that gets us all shut down. I'm done talking about floor 12. You have my answers, they weren't good enough. Whose problem is that? The manly thing to do is say finis. People don't always answer my questions here either. Nobody owes me nuthin either. They answer because they want to, when they want to. Finis.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris here is the problem I have: you claim that that fire had burnt out is probably incorrect, and could be the fire using up materials, and moving on. You claim that floor 12 had burnt out by 4:45pm

No, NIST says they have a photo showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45. Your reading comprehension is zilch.

so I would need to see photos from all sides from around that time, and also need to hear a convincing argument that the fire could not have moved into the centre of the building, after using up the consumables nearest a fresh oxygen source (windows). I don't think you can provide either, so whilst you might be right, you are guessing.

Your ability to read a floor plan is also zilch. The fire started in the center of the south side and burned to the east, then north, then west around the core where there were elevator shafts, hallways and restrooms i.e. nothing to burn.

The important part is - the fire had burned out in the area of the supposed collapse before 4:00 p.m.

Please study the progression and the floor plan to avoid making any more incorrect statements.
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

 

[triforcharity]

No, NIST says they have a photo showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45. Your reading comprehension is zilch.

Your ability to read a floor plan is also zilch. The fire started in the center of the south side and burned to the east, then north, then west around the core where there were elevator shafts, hallways and restrooms i.e. nothing to burn.

The important part is - the fire had burned out in the area of the supposed collapse before 4:00 p.m.

Please study the progression and the floor plan to avoid making any more incorrect statements.
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

I've studied the floor plans, I have done my own fuel load calculations, I have done my own simulations.

Here's the problem. YOU haven't. You've scribbled lines on an overlay of the floor 12 layout, and you base this on a FEW pictures.

Where's your fuel load calculations? What are they based on? What are the assumptions that you have made based on the data you do have?

What's the relative humidity in your simulation? You realize this has an effect on fire, right?

What's the average wind speed and direction Chris7? You realize this has an effect on the fire's progression, right?

Where's your ventilation calculations on how much more air the fire has to consume? You realize this has an effect on a fire's intensity and progression, right?



So, where is all of your calculations? Oh, that's right. You have none.

You based your analysis on a few photos, and (I am assuming) a couple of grainy YouTube videos.

So, untill you get those calculations, you CANNOT take that load of **** you call an analysis, and present it as anything even CLOSE to reality.

Now, carpenter, go get those calculatons.

Don't forget to calculate the heat energy too. That has an effect on a fire too.

Good luck carpenter.