Another person mails NIST about WTC 7.

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Another person mails NIST about WTC 7.; Dr. Wyndham’s Reply to NIST About Their
Topic Started: Sep 18 2008, 03:54 PM (1,207 Views)
justfacts	Oct 3 2008, 08:21 AM Post #26
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 08:17 AM justfacts, you are just re-forming the same lie consume .. absorb all of..(esp. of a fire) completely destroy : the fire spread rapidly, consuming many homes. The 47 story WTC7 was never "consumed by flames" or by "office fires". That my friend is the simple truth. MM Lets see - the building was on fire, and the building was destroyed. I guess you're right - the building was "consumed" by fire. Thank You. Back to the original post- why is a retired Astronomer more qualified to speak about structural failure then my dentist?
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Miragememories	Oct 3 2008, 09:03 AM Post #27
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	justfacts Oct 3 2008, 08:21 AM Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 08:17 AM justfacts, you are just re-forming the same lie consume .. absorb all of..(esp. of a fire) completely destroy : the fire spread rapidly, consuming many homes. The 47 story WTC7 was never "consumed by flames" or by "office fires". That my friend is the simple truth. MM Lets see - the building was on fire, and the building was destroyed. I guess you're right - the building was "consumed" by fire. Thank You. Back to the original post- why is a retired Astronomer more qualified to speak about structural failure then my dentist? If you are unable to retract your lie, than you have no business wasting our time expecting us to respond to your supposed concerns. MM
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


justfacts	Oct 3 2008, 09:12 AM Post #28
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 09:03 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 08:21 AM Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 08:17 AM justfacts, you are just re-forming the same lie consume .. absorb all of..(esp. of a fire) completely destroy : the fire spread rapidly, consuming many homes. The 47 story WTC7 was never "consumed by flames" or by "office fires". That my friend is the simple truth. MM Lets see - the building was on fire, and the building was destroyed. I guess you're right - the building was "consumed" by fire. Thank You. Back to the original post- why is a retired Astronomer more qualified to speak about structural failure then my dentist? If you are unable to retract your lie, than you have no business wasting our time expecting us to respond to your supposed concerns. MM So if I have an opinion that you don't share then I am a liar? But if you have an opinion that I don't share that makes you a beacon of truth. The building was consumed by fire. There was a massive fire. Smoke was coming from the entire building. The building was on fire. Period. In conclusion, for you to tell me why a retired astronomer is qualifed to report on structural failure analysis I must first deny what I think is the truth.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


JFK	Oct 3 2008, 09:18 AM Post #29
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	justfacts Oct 3 2008, 06:58 AM JFK Oct 2 2008, 03:10 PM justfacts Oct 2 2008, 02:31 PM look-up Oct 2 2008, 02:09 PM RE: OT, argument spoken by a true logician. fires + plus collapse does not mean that fires caused collapse. same with airplanes. Within the same ten hour period the building was structurally damaged by outside forces, was consumed in flames and then collapsed. Damage+fire+collapse means that damage and fire caused the collapse unless another event can be proven. justfacts Which damage is it that you speak of ? The final NIST report has ruled any damage negligible. That's pretty funny. First you ask what damage I'm speaking about then proceed to tell me it was not significant. Pretty good one. So which damage is it that you speak of ?
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Oct 3 2008, 09:24 AM Post #30
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	justfacts Oct 3 2008, 09:12 AM Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 09:03 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 08:21 AM Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 08:17 AM justfacts, you are just re-forming the same lie consume .. absorb all of..(esp. of a fire) completely destroy : the fire spread rapidly, consuming many homes. The 47 story WTC7 was never "consumed by flames" or by "office fires". That my friend is the simple truth. MM Lets see - the building was on fire, and the building was destroyed. I guess you're right - the building was "consumed" by fire. Thank You. Back to the original post- why is a retired Astronomer more qualified to speak about structural failure then my dentist? If you are unable to retract your lie, than you have no business wasting our time expecting us to respond to your supposed concerns. MM So if I have an opinion that you don't share then I am a liar? But if you have an opinion that I don't share that makes you a beacon of truth. The building was consumed by fire. There was a massive fire. Smoke was coming from the entire building. The building was on fire. Period. In conclusion, for you to tell me why a retired astronomer is qualifed to report on structural failure analysis I must first deny what I think is the truth. The point is, having a discussion with someone who freely distorts the truth (that would be you, justfacts), makes a mockery of the whole process. If that is the kind of discussion you prefer, than I suggest you visit the JREF Conspiracy Forum where the truth is a secondary consideration. MM
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


justfacts	Oct 3 2008, 09:24 AM Post #31
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	JFK Oct 3 2008, 09:18 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 06:58 AM JFK Oct 2 2008, 03:10 PM justfacts Oct 2 2008, 02:31 PM look-up Oct 2 2008, 02:09 PM RE: OT, argument spoken by a true logician. fires + plus collapse does not mean that fires caused collapse. same with airplanes. Within the same ten hour period the building was structurally damaged by outside forces, was consumed in flames and then collapsed. Damage+fire+collapse means that damage and fire caused the collapse unless another event can be proven. justfacts Which damage is it that you speak of ? The final NIST report has ruled any damage negligible. That's pretty funny. First you ask what damage I'm speaking about then proceed to tell me it was not significant. Pretty good one. So which damage is it that you speak of ? Well you obviously know what damage I'm speaking about because you offered a comment about it. Why then do you ask what damage I'm talking about - that's confusing. That's like saying "I didn't see the man and this is what he looks like".
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


justfacts	Oct 3 2008, 09:29 AM Post #32
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 09:24 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 09:12 AM Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 09:03 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 08:21 AM Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 08:17 AM justfacts, you are just re-forming the same lie consume .. absorb all of..(esp. of a fire) completely destroy : the fire spread rapidly, consuming many homes. The 47 story WTC7 was never "consumed by flames" or by "office fires". That my friend is the simple truth. MM Lets see - the building was on fire, and the building was destroyed. I guess you're right - the building was "consumed" by fire. Thank You. Back to the original post- why is a retired Astronomer more qualified to speak about structural failure then my dentist? If you are unable to retract your lie, than you have no business wasting our time expecting us to respond to your supposed concerns. MM So if I have an opinion that you don't share then I am a liar? But if you have an opinion that I don't share that makes you a beacon of truth. The building was consumed by fire. There was a massive fire. Smoke was coming from the entire building. The building was on fire. Period. In conclusion, for you to tell me why a retired astronomer is qualifed to report on structural failure analysis I must first deny what I think is the truth. The point is, having a discussion with someone who freely distorts the truth (that would be you, justfacts), makes a mockery of the whole process. If that is the kind of discussion you prefer, than I suggest you visit the JREF Conspiracy Forum where the truth is a secondary consideration. MM What process? The process where I say I think the building was consumed by fire and then you say that unless I admit I'm a liar we can't discuss anything else? What kind of process is that? And I thought the truth was supposed to be the product of discussion, not the sole possesion of one side or another.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


JFK	Oct 3 2008, 09:30 AM Post #33
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	justfacts Oct 3 2008, 09:24 AM JFK Oct 3 2008, 09:18 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 06:58 AM JFK Oct 2 2008, 03:10 PM justfacts Oct 2 2008, 02:31 PM look-up Oct 2 2008, 02:09 PM RE: OT, argument spoken by a true logician. fires + plus collapse does not mean that fires caused collapse. same with airplanes. Within the same ten hour period the building was structurally damaged by outside forces, was consumed in flames and then collapsed. Damage+fire+collapse means that damage and fire caused the collapse unless another event can be proven. justfacts Which damage is it that you speak of ? The final NIST report has ruled any damage negligible. That's pretty funny. First you ask what damage I'm speaking about then proceed to tell me it was not significant. Pretty good one. So which damage is it that you speak of ? Well you obviously know what damage I'm speaking about because you offered a comment about it. Why then do you ask what damage I'm talking about - that's confusing. That's like saying "I didn't see the man and this is what he looks like". So in effect what you are saying is you do not know. The damage I am referring to is the damage which Barry Jennings described... That is nowhere to be found in any NIST report... And I have been through all 1.26 GB of it.
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


justfacts	Oct 3 2008, 09:40 AM Post #34
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	JFK Oct 3 2008, 09:30 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 09:24 AM JFK Oct 3 2008, 09:18 AM justfacts Oct 3 2008, 06:58 AM JFK Oct 2 2008, 03:10 PM justfacts Oct 2 2008, 02:31 PM look-up Oct 2 2008, 02:09 PM RE: OT, argument spoken by a true logician. fires + plus collapse does not mean that fires caused collapse. same with airplanes. Within the same ten hour period the building was structurally damaged by outside forces, was consumed in flames and then collapsed. Damage+fire+collapse means that damage and fire caused the collapse unless another event can be proven. justfacts Which damage is it that you speak of ? The final NIST report has ruled any damage negligible. That's pretty funny. First you ask what damage I'm speaking about then proceed to tell me it was not significant. Pretty good one. So which damage is it that you speak of ? Well you obviously know what damage I'm speaking about because you offered a comment about it. Why then do you ask what damage I'm talking about - that's confusing. That's like saying "I didn't see the man and this is what he looks like". So in effect what you are saying is you do not know. The damage I am referring to is the damage which Barry Jennings described... That is nowhere to be found in any NIST report... And I have been through all 1.26 GB of it. So why didn't you say that to begin with? Why the duplicity?
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Miragememories	Oct 3 2008, 09:49 AM Post #35
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	He's all yours JFK. I'm willing to carry on an honest discussion with anyone, but that doesn't appear to be justfacts's game plan. MM
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


JFK	Oct 3 2008, 09:56 AM Post #36
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 09:49 AM He's all yours JFK. I'm willing to carry on an honest discussion with anyone, but that doesn't appear to be justfacts's game plan. MM I am inclined to agree MM, However I do believe in giving anyone "the benefit of doubt". @ justfacts, If you are not going to add substancial anything to this topic, you will be confined to the Skeptics section. Is that what you want ?
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


justfacts	Oct 3 2008, 09:57 AM Post #37
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 09:49 AM He's all yours JFK. I'm willing to carry on an honest discussion with anyone, but that doesn't appear to be justfacts's game plan. MM You mean you're willing to have an honest discussion as long as the other person admits they're lying whenever you disagree and they always admit you're right. Still never got an answer to the question: Why is a retired astronomer qualified to discuss structural failure analysis? Guess I never will get an honest answer here.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Grit1645	Oct 3 2008, 10:13 AM Post #38
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 07:44 AM MM So, in reality it is quite valid to say that the WTC fires were nowhere NEAR similar to the Madrid fire. However, the STEEL FRAMED portion of the Madrid structure DID actually collapse, so it is NOT quite valid to say that "It didn't collapse".
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Oct 3 2008, 10:40 AM Post #39
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 Oct 3 2008, 10:13 AM Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 07:44 AM MM So, in reality it is quite valid to say that the WTC fires were nowhere NEAR similar to the Madrid fire. However, the STEEL FRAMED portion of the Madrid structure DID actually collapse, so it is NOT quite valid to say that "It didn't collapse". It did not collapse. It is a noun referring to the whole building. You are another person who likes to distort the meaning of words to support your agenda. Does this look like the aftermath of a fire-collapsed 32 story building to you? "Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof." MM Edited by Miragememories, Oct 3 2008, 11:00 AM.
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


justfacts	Oct 3 2008, 02:20 PM Post #40
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	IT is a PRONOUN. Talk about distorting the meaning of words.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Miragememories	Oct 3 2008, 02:55 PM Post #41
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	justfacts Oct 3 2008, 02:20 PM IT is a PRONOUN. Talk about distorting the meaning of words. I stand corrected. MM
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Oct 3 2008, 05:24 PM Post #42
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 10:40 AM It is a noun referring to the whole building. You are another person who likes to distort the meaning of words to support your agenda. Does this look like the aftermath of a fire-collapsed 32 story building to you? OK, the whole building didn't collapse. The relevant PART of the building (to WTC7) is the steel framed section, which DID collapse. The reinforced concrete section doesn't really compare with the steel framed wtc structures. To compare a fire in a reinforced concrete building to one in a steel framed building would not really be a good comparison. My point is that the steel framed section is a reasonable comparison. It burned for a long time in an obvious inferno, and it took a long time for the steel part to fail, whereas Building 7 didn't have a similar inferno, and collapsed in less time. It isn't necessary to parse in order to make that point. Another point that I have not seen anyone make is that once WTC 7 collapse the supposedly huge fire was apparently OUT for all intents and purposes. How many times do you see fires on TV where parts of the building collapse and the fire continues like a blazing inferno on the debris?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Avenger	Oct 3 2008, 05:48 PM Post #43
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: OK, the whole building didn't collapse. The relevant PART of the building (to WTC7) is the steel framed section, which DID collapse. The reinforced concrete section doesn't really compare with the steel framed wtc structures. To compare a fire in a reinforced concrete building to one in a steel framed building would not really be a good comparison The outer columns in the Madrid tower seem thinner and spaced farther the columns in the Twin Towers were. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Avenger	Oct 3 2008, 05:49 PM Post #44
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Oops! Never mind, I'm in the wrong forum.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Miragememories	Oct 3 2008, 07:38 PM Post #45
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	I realize the Madrid fire is not a one-to-one comparison with the WTC7 fire. I used the Windsor Building fire, because it happened recently, and because it illustrated what I thought a building "*consumed by fire" would look like. I had to comment on the fact that it didn't collapse, because it was a 15 hour fire, and it showed evidence of being far hotter than what could have occurred in the northeast corner of WTC7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11. MM Edited by Miragememories*, Oct 4 2008, 06:07 AM.
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Sam	Oct 5 2008, 07:32 AM Post #46
Posts: 61 Group: Members Member #83 Joined: 01/16/08	Miragememories Oct 3 2008, 07:38 PM I realize the Madrid fire is not a one-to-one comparison with the WTC7 fire. I used the Windsor Building fire, because it happened recently, and because it illustrated what I thought a building "*consumed by fire*" would look like. I had to comment on the fact that it didn't collapse, because it was a 15 hour fire, and it showed evidence of being far hotter than what could have occurred in the northeast corner of WTC7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11. MM Yet even though you Quote: realize the Madrid fire is not a one-to-one comparison with the WTC7 fire and even though you know the portion of the building that was a steel frame did collapse you put that picture taken in the dark and imply by your statement that it didn't collapse so why should the WTC 7 have collapsed. You say Quote: I had to comment on the fact that it didn't collapse, because it was a 15 hour fire, . but I know you are too well informed to not know the steel portion did collapse. You are so quick to call someone else a liar because of semantics but your standard of truth was not so great when it came to your misleading picture. You seemed to be pretty knowledgeable so you probably know that the conclusions soemone could make about that fire is steel does collapse in a hot uncontrolled fire while concrete is much more resistant.
Posts: 61 Group: Members Member #83 Joined: 01/16/08


Miragememories	Oct 5 2008, 12:57 PM Post #47
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	I don't accept your point Sam. Sam "...your standard of truth was not so great when it came to your misleading picture." Honest photographic records illustrate the dramatic difference between visual truth and "loose with the truth". I used a building pic that unquestionably met with what I thought would be the public's understanding of "consumed by fire". justfacts's WTC 7's fire description was a lie when stated factually as "consumed by fire". About the failure of some external steel in the 15 hour Windsor Building fire? The interesting thing to me, is not that it failed, but that it lasted as well as it did. This was not significant load bearing structural steel we're talking about here. From the official collapse report; Authored by; Dr. Kenichi Ikeda, Fire Safety Design Group Division Prof. Ai Sekizawa, University of Tokyo, Dept. of Chemical Systems Engineering, Fire and Disaster Management Engineering Laboratory http://www.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/iwerr/doc/pdf/S12%20PDF/s12-1.pdf "...Columns and girders of reinforced concrete were used only in facility floor supporting the upper floor loads." "the sizes of the steel columns at the outer walls were small and thin, they had almost no fire protection and were easy to lose the strength. The outer frames of upper floors collapse in short time on account of loss of strength of steel columns." "The reason of not collapsing of the structure under 16th floor can be thought that the steel columns had fire protection and the effective activity of fire brigade." MM Edited by Miragememories, Oct 5 2008, 02:48 PM.
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Lin Kuei	Oct 6 2008, 05:06 AM Post #48
Posts: 1,308 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	justfacts I am confining you to the skeptic's section anyway. Feel free to start a thread there about this.
Posts: 1,308 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2