created by: Timesten | Nov 19, 2010

Top Stories

4,841 votes

*** Did WTC 7 Collapse due to fire ***

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
Comments
2,101 - 2,120 of 2,154 Comments Last updated Aug 29, 2013
Charlie Sheen

San Anselmo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2328
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not really evidence of anything and they do determine what is evidence and what is not relevant, What did you want them to do in NYC, move the debris from two 110 story buildings into your back yard?
SO WHAT EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED?
I only ask because I want to pick out some tiny piece of your post and make you define it so as to distract you from your premise that in a crime scene "everything" is possible evidence.

This way we will get bogged down in meaningless little details which I can easily wave away into nothingness. I think they call it a strawman tactic.

I used to be good at it. But like all the dis-informational tactics I've tried on this forum, the more I use it the easier it is to spot.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2329
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>I only ask because I want to pick out some tiny piece of your post and make you define it so as to distract you from your premise that in a crime scene "everything" is possible evidence.

This way we will get bogged down in meaningless little details which I can easily wave away into nothingness. I think they call it a strawman tactic.

I used to be good at it. But like all the dis-informational tactics I've tried on this forum, the more I use it the easier it is to spot.
Oh the delicious irony!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2331
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
But like all the dis-informational tactics I've tried on this forum, the more I use it the easier it is to spot.
Most would call it evidence, but thanks for not stating ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER THAT WAS DESTROYED!

You win a cookie!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2333
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire?
.
Written by Chris Sarns, Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013 18:45
.
No.
.
The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways.
.
A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what MIGHT have happened if various assumptions are true.
.
NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.
.
1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall.
.
NIST’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred.
.
It began when the point NIST was using [1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner.
.
Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration.
.
This is consistent with Shyam Sunder’s statement at the WTC7 technical briefing on August 26, 2008 (which was his initial public attempt to deny free-fall along with his justification for that denial):
.
“… a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it … there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
.
Given the mismatch between the NIST computer animations and the video record of the actual destruction, it is clear that NIST’s assumptions (computer inputs) were substantially in error.
.
It was NIST’s job to explain the destruction that actually occurred, not to posit some possible way in which the destruction could have occurred.
.
Their model, which does not reflect the observed 2.25 seconds (about 100 feet) of free fall, should be judged a complete failure, or a cover-up.
.
Or an outright lie from the government agency supposed investigating and denying their own complicity in the tragic events of 9/11.
.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
.
Do You Believe In Magic ?
.
The US Government Obviously Does !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2334
Mar 20, 2013
 
Richard Gage to the office

Richard Gage to the office

there is a pig here that wants to have a squeal or two with you. He says that he has an education but no degrees.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2335
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The same Richard Gage Dr Zorderz?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2336
Mar 20, 2013
 
Ya drunken sot have another pint, on me.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2337
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Ya drunken sot have another pint, on me.
No matter how drunk I got,I wouldn't follow Richard Gage.

The scary thing is that 1100 Architects & Engineers(accept people like you..mental illness) find this guy credible source of information.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2338
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire?
.
Written by Chris Sarns, Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013 18:45
.
No.
.
The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways.
.
A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what MIGHT have happened if various assumptions are true.
.
NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.
.
1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall.
.
NISTÂ’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred.
.
It began when the point NIST was using [1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner.
.
Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration.
.
This is consistent with Shyam SunderÂ’s statement at the WTC7 technical briefing on August 26, 2008 (which was his initial public attempt to deny free-fall along with his justification for that denial):
.
“… a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it … there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
.
Given the mismatch between the NIST computer animations and the video record of the actual destruction, it is clear that NISTÂ’s assumptions (computer inputs) were substantially in error.
.
It was NISTÂ’s job to explain the destruction that actually occurred, not to posit some possible way in which the destruction could have occurred.
.
Their model, which does not reflect the observed 2.25 seconds (about 100 feet) of free fall, should be judged a complete failure, or a cover-up.
.
Or an outright lie from the government agency supposed investigating and denying their own complicity in the tragic events of 9/11.
.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
.
Do You Believe In Magic ?
.
The US Government Obviously Does !
1) Only in Twooferdumb is there the asinine expectation that models mimic events. Spending exorbitant amounts of time and energy predicting the behaviour of every structural member would be as pointless as it is useless.

2) The data and software used by NIST is available via FOIA request and download from NIST's website, but A$E4twoofyness hasn't bothered to acquire it for obvious reasons.

3) Like everything oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop spams and shills, this is yet another load of crap aimed at the scientifically literate fools that make up Gages faithful flock of merry idiots.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2339
Mar 21, 2013
 
Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire?
.
Written by Chris Sarns, Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013 18:45
.
No.
.
The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways.
.
A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what MIGHT have happened if various assumptions are true.
.
NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.
.
1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall.
.
NIST’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred.
.
It began when the point NIST was using [1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner.
.
Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration.
.
This is consistent with Shyam Sunder’s statement at the WTC7 technical briefing on August 26, 2008 (which was his initial public attempt to deny free-fall along with his justification for that denial):
.
“… a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it … there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
.
Given the mismatch between the NIST computer animations and the video record of the actual destruction, it is clear that NIST’s assumptions (computer inputs) were substantially in error.
.
It was NIST’s job to explain the destruction that actually occurred, not to posit some possible way in which the destruction could have occurred.
.
Their model, which does not reflect the observed 2.25 seconds (about 100 feet) of free fall, should be judged a complete failure, or a cover-up.
.
Or an outright lie from the government agency supposed investigating and denying their own complicity in the tragic events of 9/11.
.
Correct!
.
"the asinine expectation that (man made) models mimic events. Spending exorbitant amounts of time and energy predicting the behaviour of every structural member would be as pointless as it is useless."
.
That's basically what was posted the first time.
.
Thanks, mu shu pig meat, for corroborating the original post written by your office buddies.
.
Or Do You Believe In Magic Also ? LOL

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2340
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Richard Gage to the office

Richard Gage to the office

there is a pig here that wants to have a squeal or two with you. He says that he has an education but no degrees.
Actually oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop, there's a problem with our Dick Gage's current project!

We ordered 5 pieces of equipment from a supplier out of Ohio that have come under scrutiny (mainly mine). I asked Dick for the supporting documentation a few weeks back in the hopes of completing my portion of the data book ahead of time, he sent it to me but it was missing one very crucial document, the PWHT (post weld heat treatment) chart.

I asked him to contact the vendor and get it and they said sure but it never showed up...it drug on for over a week with him asking and them deflecting until I called and threatened to send their equipment back.

They finally sent it and low and behold, the company they used had accidentally left the material under hold for almost 12 hours!

It was carbon steel (A516 70N) and the temp was below transformation stage but it only required a 2hr hold according to their WPS.

I reviewed the MTR and saw tensiles were around 82ksi so started doing hardness testing to determine whether the material is still within mechanical acceptability.

And get this!

What I found after hardness testing was the material is now around 64ksi!

I rejected the material and we now have a massive issue with meeting delivery.

Do ya get it?

Of course you don't oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2341
Mar 21, 2013
 
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
.
2) The data and software used by NIST is available via FOIA request and download from NIST's website, but A$E4twoofyness hasn't bothered to acquire it for obvious reasons.
A&E shouldn't even need to go to NIST for data or software.What Architects or Engineers doesn't design,simulate earthquake or other stress tests?I would think this would be standard requirement for submitting a build design,particularly in earthquake zones.

The plans for the buildings are freely available and the software should be on every one of the so called Architects or Engineers desks and be fully competent in its use.

Not one even has CAD?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2342
Mar 21, 2013
 
That you, mu shu pig meat, are incompetent? A victim of the "Peter Principle?
.
Yes, I got that a long time ago.
.
You DO Believe In Magic !!! LOL

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2343
Mar 21, 2013
 
Oh Goodie, Twofers!

I win I win LOL

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2344
Mar 21, 2013
 
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Oh Goodie, Twofers!
I win I win LOL
Its a hollow victory.
Winning by default.Next time (or any time for that matter) turn up with some evidence.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2345
Mar 21, 2013
 
Dr_Zorderz
You might look here
http://simpsonswiki.net/w/images/6/69/Box_fac...

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2346
Mar 21, 2013
 
The meddling topix mods are paying so much attention to unethical polling practices that they are losing control of regular day to day operations of this website.

Get it together people!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2347
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>A&E shouldn't even need to go to NIST for data or software.What Architects or Engineers doesn't design,simulate earthquake or other stress tests?I would think this would be standard requirement for submitting a build design,particularly in earthquake zones.

The plans for the buildings are freely available and the software should be on every one of the so called Architects or Engineers desks and be fully competent in its use.

Not one even has CAD?
In order to prove NIST is wrong, they do need to use the data and software NIST used. The lie is that it's unavailable. It's quite available but shysters like Gage know they can lie because his target audience is made up of mindless dolts like oh elevator boy-sheep would never think about questioning sources that support his delusional belief system, nor would he dream of trying to validate anything to that effect.

As far as the building drawings/blueprints go, those are proprietary and the property of the building owners and/or designers.

I've never seen an engineer stamped blueprint that didn't have a statement of ownership and instruction on the illegality of copying or transmitting it to unauthorized personnel.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2348
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Dr_Zorderz wrote:
That you, mu shu pig meat, are incompetent? A victim of the "Peter Principle?
.
Yes, I got that a long time ago.
.
You DO Believe In Magic !!! LOL
Awww...the 7/11 clerk is cranky:-(

Does projection help oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop?

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2349
Mar 21, 2013
 
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to prove NIST is wrong, they do need to use the data and software NIST used. The lie is that it's unavailable. It's quite available but shysters like Gage know they can lie because his target audience is made up of mindless dolts like oh elevator boy-sheep would never think about questioning sources that support his delusional belief system, nor would he dream of trying to validate anything to that effect.
As far as the building drawings/blueprints go, those are proprietary and the property of the building owners and/or designers.
I've never seen an engineer stamped blueprint that didn't have a statement of ownership and instruction on the illegality of copying or transmitting it to unauthorized personnel.
The second result in my search for the WTC 7 plans
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
"Editor’s note: The release of detailed construction documents and shop drawings for WTC Building 7 is the latest in a series of FOIA successes by AE911Truth supporters."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••