NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

cmatrix said:
Sure I'd love to see them. I'm sure none of them can explain the free fall period.
Click to expand...

I just love when truthers tip their hand to reveal their incredulity already locked and loaded in the barrel.


Justin39640 said:
Wrong. Steel is a very good conductor of heat. At almost 3000 degrees the hinge pins would seize in their bores. Damage to the hydraulics would be certain too.

If they pulled molten steel out of a hole that would mean the hole the claw was operating in was around that temperature too.

You obviously didn't think anything through. (shocker)
Click to expand...


Remember...truthers always say the laws of physics must have been suspended.

I am curious how CMatrix is determining the damage as minimal? He's not another truther just making baseless claims and using weasel words to hide from backing up his nonsense is he?

kylebisme said:
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...

So you accept the fact that its a mixture, but expect a molten mixture to yield the same results of color as a pure sample? Not to mention we still have to account for the steel arm functioning.

Anyone else see this sagging beam? I don't.
 
Last edited:
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...

why would I bother to do that? Its you that are making the ludicrous claims.........I did college level physics at engineering school and I can think of at least one way it could have happened......you apparently did not and can not.

Remember I do not have to convince you.......you are simply just another delusional CTer and likely beyond any help outside prescription medication........... .you have to convince the worlds top structural engineers and physicists......hows that going??:D
 
grandmastershek said:
I just love when truthers tip their hand to reveal their incredulity already locked and loaded in the barrel.





Remember...truthers always say the laws of physics must have been suspended.

I am curious how CMatrix is determining the damage as minimal? He's not another truther just making baseless claims and using weasel words to hide from backing up his nonsense is he?
Click to expand...

So where are all these papers explaining the free fall period of WTC 7?

Whether the damage to WTC 7 was minimal or major is completely irrelevant. Progressive collapses require GPE which is not available to a free falling building. Again, the crackpot theory you believe in without question violates the laws of physics.
 
kylebisme said:
Being a big steel beam, glowing yellow hot with the end dripping away; it doesn't take a Sherlock.


We've been through this before:
Click to expand...

Wee problem.
In Foundries steel melts in large electric powered furnaces.
The moment the steel is poured from the furnace or the power turned off the steel solidifies.
Where is the heat source in relation to your "big steel beam, glowing yellow hot with the end dripping away" ?
 
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...
THIS
You are wrong. You ruined the arrogant atmosphere you were setting up.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
THIS
You are wrong. You ruined the arrogant atmosphere you were setting up.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything besides pompous completely unsupported pronouncements to support your zany belief that a free falling building has GPE available to cause a progressive collapse because all available GPE has not been converted to kinetic energy?
 
Last edited:
a free falling building has GPE available to cause a progressive collapse because all available GPE has not been converted to kinetic energy?
Click to expand...
Since you're fabricating a brand new rule for the conversion of GPE to KE it's a no-brainer it would violate your fabrication. In reality, where most people would prefer to venture time on, GPE decreases as KE increases while the building falls; it is not all instantaneously converted. Your fabrication violates the law of conservation of energy, well anyway, you're heavily perversing it.
 
Last edited:
I'm just throwing this out there, and I may regret it, but...

Has there ever been a "free-falling building," in the history of buildings? I mean, a small portion of the facade of this particular building (WTC7) only fell at free-fall for a couple of seconds. Is there any observed "free falling" in controlled demolitions of casinos or Vérinage? Wouldn't this be the sort of information that truthy people would seek to bolster their arguments?
 
Dog Town said:
Odd that you still have no evidence, of such!
NOT!
Click to expand...

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.
 
cmatrix since you clearly feel qualified, and we are know-nothings please cite from any high school physics book an excerpt that validates your contention that PE is immediately and completely converted to KE the moment an object begins to fall. Please quote where it says "PE=0" at the moment a fall begins, before any impact or collision has taken place.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Since you're fabricating a brand new rule for the conversion of GPE to KE it's a no-brainer it would violate your fabrication. In reality, where most people would prefer to venture time on, GPE decreases as KE increases while the building falls; it is not all instantaneously converted. Your fabrication violates the law of conservation of energy, well anyway, you're heavily perversing it.
Click to expand...

There is no fabrication and no violations on my part. You are the one claiming that a free falling object can break up resisting structure without slowing down. That is a violation of the law of conservation of energy.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
cmatrix since you clearly feel qualified, and we are know-nothings please cite from any high school physics book an excerpt that validates your contention that PE is immediately and completely converted to KE the moment an object begins to fall. Please quote where it says "PE=0" at the moment a fall begins, before any impact or collision has taken place.
Click to expand...

How's this for showing all available PE is immediately converted to KE the moment an object begins to fall:

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/vlab/PotentialEnergy/

However, I have never said PE is 0 at the moment a fall begins. An object with 0 GPE would be at the core of the Earth or in empty space. You feeling alright?
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
Because dogs can only detect what they are trained for, which is common pyrotechnic materials and tangents required by law to be added to such matrials. Hence one obvious reason for using fancy nano-thermite based explosives for covert demolitions instead of more common stuff.


I've mentioned it elsewhere before, as have many others, but notably:
Click to expand...

You mean taggants?

Switzerland passed a law in 1980 requiring taggants in explosives manufactured there, and that the code must be changed every six months. So far it is the only country which requires identification taggants. Imported explosives must be tagged only if competing products are also manufactured in Switzerland.
[edit] External links
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taggant
 
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...

That picture is photoshopped.
 
cmatrix said:
NIST stated that the minor damage to WTC 7 was in no way responsible for its collapse. You have no evidence whatsoever that fires caused WTC 7 to collapse.
Click to expand...

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.

cmatrix said:
There have been absolutely no experiments undertaken that suggest fires could cause a building like WTC 7 to collapse with a period of free fall. You have no evidence to support the crackpot theory you believe in. All you have is faith and crackpot pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

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

cmatrix said:
OTOH experiments have been conducted that show thermate could easily have caused the WTC 7 collapse:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-10/911-experiments-great-thermate-debate

Epic debunkster fail.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cmatrix said:
A crackpot book sways me as much as the crackpot NIST reports.

How did this minimal damage to WTC 7 cause eight stories of resisting structure to be removed to allow the 2.25 s free fall period?

Yeah, still an epic debunkster fail.
Click to expand...

NIST explains how the collapse occured.

Do I need to quote it exactly for you and walk you through it step by step?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom