'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

,,,,and what did Dr. Greening have to say about the responses to his comments to NIST?(bolds mine)

The JREF response has been quite predictable and (to be Frank), totally absurd and irrelevant!

I hope more and more people see that conspiracy-debunking site for the trash-can of human values it really is!

On the other hand, the Truther's response, such as the BS at 911Blogger, was very sad too,.... it really makes me wonder about the agenda of those guys.

 

[triforcharity]

Keep up. They don't need to be an authority. The NIST fire analysis does not match reality. You only need eyes and a lack of religious belief to spot it.

I have made no appeals to authority. You guys are the ones telling me I must be an engineer.

The NIST fire analysis is not based off of a single photo. Chris Sarn's analysis is based on a single photo, and does NOT come from a souce that would have knowledge of how to properly analyze fire. Especially from a single photo.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Keep up. They don't need to be an authority. The NIST fire analysis does not match reality. You only need eyes and a lack of religious belief to spot it.

I have made no appeals to authority. You guys are the ones telling me I must be an engineer.

What qualifications, experience and expertise do you have to come to these conclusins? Why are they not shared by the people with relevant qulifications, experience and expertise?

My lack of the above leads me to think it does match reality. All the experts with relevant experience, qualifications and expertise agree with me. Way to Go!

 

[Andy_Ross]

I figured as much.

So why do you refer to an old Draft Report and not the final report?

 

[cooperman]

So why do you refer to an old Draft Report and not the final report?

I didn't.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I didn't.

Then how did you reference an appendix that only exists in the draft?

 

[cooperman]

What qualifications, experience and expertise do you have to come to these conclusins? Why are they not shared by the people with relevant qulifications, experience and expertise?

My lack of the above leads me to think it does match reality. All the experts with relevant experience, qualifications and expertise agree with me. Way to Go!

A rather pathetic appeal to authority. It doesn't match reality. You are trying to make a fire simulation that is wrong, right by saying they have experience and expertise. Show me how the fire analysis matches the observed fire at 5pm and 2pm.

 

[BigAl]

A rather pathetic appeal to authority. It doesn't match reality. You are trying to make a fire simulation that is wrong, right by saying they have experience and expertise. Show me how the fire analysis matches the observed fire at 5pm and 2pm.

Source? (with a URL)

 

[cooperman]

Then how did you reference an appendix that only exists in the draft?

I was comparing NISTs description of a photograph in the draft that they then omitted from the final report. They stated that the photograph showed that the fires were out in that area by 4:45pm. The reality of that photograph hasn't changed, but their final report has fires there at 5pm. That proves their fire simulation is fraudulent.

 

[cooperman]

,,,,and what did Dr. Greening have to say about the responses to his comments to NIST?(bolds mine)

And what did he have to say about the jref response? You didn't bold that bit did you?

 

[beachnut]

And what did he have to say about the jref response? You didn't bold that bit did you?

Dr Greening does not agree with your CD fantasy on WTC 7.

 

[Miragememories]

Dr Greening does not agree with your CD fantasy on WTC 7.

You have no idea what Dr. Greening currently thinks about WTC7.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

Well, your barbecue must be different to mine. I can put my hand above the coals. I am not so keen to do it when it is flaming.

I am struggling to determine if you are being serious. We are talking about floor beams reaching 600 degrees EIGHTY minutes after the fire was extinguished in that area.

ok smart guy, here is another test...

1. with the flame going, move your hand through it, take about half a second to do it.

2. Now, take your hand and touch the embers/coals for half a second.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Heat soak and radiation is not what NIST claim happened. Will you please address why they have simulations showing fire around column 79 at 5pm?

They don't. There GAS TEMPERATURE IMAGES show heat in the area at that time. If you go to the final report (not your 2004 version) and go to figure 3-6, you will see that at 5PM, the hottest areas have moved away from the area speak of, but the area is still listed at about 400-500C.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

How so? Has the fire simulation and photographic record changed?

Have you asked them? No, of course not.

Do those diagrams appear in the final report? No. Do others? Yes.

What do you think? Why are you using the old draft report?

You know why, because you know that the final report does not show this tiny little bleb, that to be honest is not even an error, but a misinterpretation on your part.

Dishonest...NEW HEIGHTS.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I was comparing NISTs description of a photograph in the draft that they then omitted from the final report. They stated that the photograph showed that the fires were out in that area by 4:45pm. The reality of that photograph hasn't changed, but their final report has fires there at 5pm. That proves their fire simulation is fraudulent.

The photo is only able to show (A) FLAME, and (B) only the exterior surface, and what area might be revealed through the windows...NOTHING MORE.

How close was column 79 to the window, Cooperman?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

You have proven that you have not read the report in the "Questiob for Ryan Mackey" thread.

So, in fact, what you have just said is that I am engaging in "caustic behaviour" by simply stating a fact and asking you to read the report.

I have read it....did so about a year ago. I have also now read about 50-60% of it again in the last 2-3 days.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE FINAL REPORT....IT IS ONLY 88 PAGES LONG!!!!

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

SO Cooperman, you gonna start using THE FINAL REPORT, or are you going to continue to argue about the draft report?

TAM

 

[cooperman]

SO Cooperman, you gonna start using THE FINAL REPORT, or are you going to continue to argue about the draft report?

TAM

Do you think that NIST can revise reality in their final report?

 

[triforcharity]

A rather pathetic appeal to authority. It doesn't match reality. You are trying to make a fire simulation that is wrong, right by saying they have experience and expertise. Show me how the fire analysis matches the observed fire at 5pm and 2pm.

I already have. You ignored it. Again, and again, and again.

The simulation is NOT inaccurate. YOUR (and others') conclusions are wrong. It's not your fault you don't understand fire analysis. The NIST simulations match the observed events. Sorry if they don't match your failed analysis.