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

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

Created by Timesten on Nov 19, 2010

4,842 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Charlie Sheen

San Anselmo, CA

#2328 Mar 19, 2013
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

Canada

#2329 Mar 20, 2013
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

Matthews, NC

#2331 Mar 20, 2013
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

#2333 Mar 20, 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.
.
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

#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

#2335 Mar 20, 2013
The same Richard Gage Dr Zorderz?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#2336 Mar 20, 2013
Ya drunken sot have another pint, on me.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#2337 Mar 20, 2013
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

Canada

#2338 Mar 21, 2013
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.
.
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 !
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

#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

Canada

#2340 Mar 21, 2013
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

#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

#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

#2343 Mar 21, 2013
Oh Goodie, Twofers!

I win I win LOL

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#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

#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

#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

Canada

#2347 Mar 21, 2013
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

Canada

#2348 Mar 21, 2013
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

#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:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 min LAWEST100 654,357
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min Joe Fortuna 64,477
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 20 min DebraE 106,596
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 26 min bad bob 183,209
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 37 min RiccardoFire 45,277
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 48 min WasteWater 2,597
Encourage Teenage Girls To Have Sex (Oct '11) 1 hr Horny jack 26 male 29
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr The Hangman 973,918
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Brian_G 281,947
More from around the web