"Chris7 disproved NIST's claims in four centrally important areas"

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

No wonder my kebabs never cook and are always rare on the inside!!!!

Stupid skewers...

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Next time use beer cans.


Oh wait, there's no flames in them. Nothing will cook.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Animal

Proof? LMAO.

You still cannot grasp the simple fact that Upper layer gas temperature does not equate to visible flames.

The only proof you have supplied is that you wish to remain willfully ignorant in order to maintain your religious beliefs.

It was also demonstrated that his characterization of gross mismatch is incorrect and besides that, a difference between window fire and sim is to be expected for several reasons already outlined to Chirs several times.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Everyone knows that the steel skewer will just wick away heat before it can raise the temperature of the kebabs by any substantial amount.

I've heard this literal argument from another truther. In accordance with "thermodynamics" (truther woo) the steel beams would transmit the heat over the entire structure, therefor the girders could never weaken till the entire building turned into a puddle!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

Location of fires and temperatures.
”The major fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 in WTC 7 were simulated suing the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), version 4, in a manner similar to the simulations conducted for WTC1 and WTC 2 … There were far fewer photographs and videos of WTC 7 than of the towers; and thus, the details of the WTC 7 fires were not as precise as for the fires in the towers. However the imagery was sufficient to guide the WTC 7 fire simulations. … While use was made of the appearance of flames and window breakage in photographs and videos in formulating the simulations, the Investigation Team realized that the absolute timing of the simulations might not align exactly with the timing of the fires on September 11, 2001.” NCSTAR 1A [p.32].

C7’s page showing claimed discrepancies between NIST’s photos and fire simulation for the 12th floor:
http://truthphalanx.com/wp-content/u...n_080912c1.jpg

WTC7 NCSTAR 1-9 for photos
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

For the 12th floor - Floor plan NCSTAR 1-9 [p 56] showing gyp board offices layout.

For NIST gas temperatures simulation. Times are actual PM.
http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/696/hhs.mp4/

Column 1 - Row 1-4. C7 has clearly photoshopped globs of fire to match the NIST photos in column 2. No internal fires besides the ones attached to the windows are shown. The NIST FDS simulation shows fire progression bounded and spreading by the straight office walls and on the interior where the fires can't be seen due to the perimeter office but can be modeled. There is no calculation or software producing these images.

Column 1 Row 4. C7 doesn’t show fires on floor 12. NIST photo Column 2 Row 4 shows a fire at the NW windows area.. C7 doesn’t show fires inside which can’t be seen due to the gyp board offices walls surrounding the perimeter. C7 simulation doesn’t match photo.


Columns 2,3 Row 1; NIST photo and simulation. Photo is labeled by C7 East 2:10PM; actual NIST label is 2:11 PM. Simulation labeled 2PM. Actual simulation shows fire on the east side windows at 2:20 PM. NIST photo and simulation do not exactly match by 9 minutes.

Columns 2,3 Row 2; NIST photo and simulation. Photo is labeled by C7 North 3:05PM; actual NIST label is 3:05 PM +- 5 min. Simulation labeled 3:00 PM. Actual simulation shows fire on the north wall between 3:05 and 3:10 PM. NIST photo and simulation match.

Columns 2,3 Row 3; NIST photo and simulation. Photo is labeled by C7 North 3:50PM; actual NIST label is 3:49 - 3:54 PM. Simulation labeled 4:00 PM. Actual simulation shows fires at Northeast windows between 3:49 - 3:54 PM, photo does not. NIST photo and simulation do not match.

Columns 2,3 Row 4; NIST photo and simulation. Photo is labeled by C7 NW corner 4:45 PM; actual NIST label is 5:00 PM uncertainty 10 minutes. Simulation labeled 5:00 PM. Actual simulation shows fire on the NW side windows between 4:55 - 5:05 PM. NIST photo and simulation match.

NIST photos and temperature simulation match for two out of the four examples, and one lags by 9 minutes as explained by NIST above.

The gas temperatures as shown by the simulation at the 12th floor ceiling remained above 500 C, even after the fires moved on to other locations continuing to damage the structure.

I doubt AE911T or C7 will correct these mistakes about the NIST photos not matching the fire simulation or that the fire had completely burned out on floor 12 before 4:45 PM.

Hardly a gross mismatch especially if this is supposed to be an illustration of "fraud".

[000063]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Everyone knows that the steel skewer will just wick away heat before it can raise the temperature of the kebabs by any substantial amount.

Good to know. Good thing my family uses wood.

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Next time use beer cans.


Oh wait, there's no flames in them. Nothing will cook.

This recipe is a lie!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Robrob

I've heard this literal argument from another truther. In accordance with "thermodynamics" (truther woo) the steel beams would transmit the heat over the entire structure, therefor the girders could never weaken till the entire building turned into a puddle!

Using the truther logic with the skewers one should expect that heat being transmitted from hot(the ends of the skewers exposed to the heat) to the cooler areas (the parts of the skewer within the meat) will burn the meat from the inside
It does heat the interior but to a much smaller degree than the exposed surfaces AND of course the part of the skewer in the meat is not insulated

[Animal]

Originally Posted by Robrob

I've heard this literal argument from another truther. In accordance with "thermodynamics" (truther woo) the steel beams would transmit the heat over the entire structure, therefor the girders could never weaken till the entire building turned into a puddle!

My favorite video disproving that piece of troofer nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Animal

Proof? LMAO.

You still cannot grasp the simple fact that Upper layer gas temperature does not equate to visible flames.

The only proof you have supplied is that you wish to remain willfully ignorant in order to maintain your religious beliefs.

I guess he's never "seen" a methanol fire. I'd love to see his MSPaintFDS on one of them.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Animal

You still cannot grasp the simple fact that Upper layer gas temperature does not equate to visible flames.

The only proof you have supplied is that you wish to remain willfully ignorant in order to maintain your religious beliefs.

You are talking to yourself. I have responded to this several times as I have responded to all the endless merry-go-round repeats of the same denial canards.

The 1800^oF gases are only directly above the hottest fires. The gasses cool as they spread out. They cannot be as hot away from the fire at its peak.

ETA: Keep reading this until you understand that it says what I have just said above.
"Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]


The fire sim has upper level gas temperatures at 1800oF around columns 42 to 46 long after the fire has burned out and the breeze is blowing the hot gases out the broken windows on the south east sides.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

You are talking to yourself. I have responded to this several times as I have responded to all the endless merry-go-round repeats of the same denial tactics.

The 1800^oF gases are only directly above the hottest fires. The gasses cool as they spread out. They cannot be as hot away from the fire at its peak.

ETA: Keep reading this until you understand that it says what I have just said above.
"Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]


The fire sim has upper level gas temperatures at 1800oF around columns 42 to 46 long after the fire has burned out and the breeze is blowing the hot gases out the broken windows on the south east sides.

Keep ignoring the fact you have been proven a fraud.

You are no different than a Hari Krisha repeating a mantra to maintain your religious beliefs.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Animal

Keep ignoring the fact you have been proven a fraud.

In your dreams. That's just pure denial of the simple fact I just posted. The hot gasses cool as they spread out.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

In your dreams. That's just pure denial of the simple fact I just posted. The hot gasses cool as they spread out.

How much? Can you even give an educated guess?

Care to put a value to that?

Deg per meter would suffice.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

In your dreams. That's just pure denial of the simple fact I just posted. The hot gasses cool as they spread out.

um... hate to point this lil factoid out... but... er, um... New gasses were being produced for 7+ hours.

Failgasm.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The 1800^oF gases are only directly above the hottest fires. The gasses cool as they spread out. They cannot be as hot away from the fire at its peak.

.

Actually Chris, I believe they can be hotter than the fire below, and likely for some distance.

Those hot gases contain unburned volatiles that pryolized from the material below but did not reach ignition temp. They are now at the ceiling level and eventually reach ignition temp while up there and burn, often at greater temp than the floor level materials.

That is the definition of one type of flashover.
This of course produces more , different, hot gases (a lot of CO and CO2 for eg.) which indeed would cool as they spread out, if allowed to mix with cooler air.

In a woodstove chimney fire those gases have condensed on the inner wall of the chimney, what is called 'creosote', over time. If that condensate reaches ignition temp you have a chimney fire which can burn through the stainless steel inner wall, the insulation, and the outer stainless steel wall of the chimney. A chimney that has had such a fire should be inspected for damage and manufacturers recommend, and some fire codes require, that the chimney be replaced.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The fire sim has upper level gas temperatures at 1800oF around columns 42 to 46 long after the fire has burned out and the breeze is blowing the hot gases out the broken windows on the south east sides.

,,, and you know that the all material around column 79 had burned out,,, how?
Obviously you have some valid fire science to back this up other than the wishful thinking of AE911T and Chris Sarns? You have conducted a thorough FDS and watched as it did the enormous number of calculations required to predict fire spread, temps, etc.?

I know,, you are waiting for NIST to supply you with all data inputs before you do such an FDS,
or you may have said you would not perform an FDS and only wanted to have the data that NIST used for some other method of checking it.

Seems to me I have directly asked what it is that AE911T proposes to do with the data, and I forget what your answer was. Would you mind repeating again what it is exactly would be done with that data, so I don't have to search the thread?

BTW, if you do not know what exactly AE911T proposes to do with this data (or for that matter who in AE911T would be responsible for this research) its ok to simply say so.

[000063]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

How much? Can you even give an educated guess?

Care to put a value to that?

Deg per meter would suffice.

I always love it when Sarns runs out of actual measurements and just starts making vague made-up claims.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

,,, and you know that the all material around column 79 had burned out,,, how?
Obviously you have some valid fire science to back this up other than the wishful thinking of AE911T and Chris Sarns? You have conducted a thorough FDS and watched as it did the enormous number of calculations required to predict fire spread, temps, etc.?

I know,, you are waiting for NIST to supply you with all data inputs before you do such an FDS,
or you may have said you would not perform an FDS and only wanted to have the data that NIST used for some other method of checking it.

Seems to me I have directly asked what it is that AE911T proposes to do with the data, and I forget what your answer was. Would you mind repeating again what it is exactly would be done with that data, so I don't have to search the thread?

BTW, if you do not know what exactly AE911T proposes to do with this data (or for that matter who in AE911T would be responsible for this research) its ok to simply say so.

It strikes me that AE911T may wish to keep secret exactly what they propose to do with the data if they did obtain it. This would head off prior criticism of their methods.

However, now we have AE911T not only having already made the accusation of fraud against NIST but if they also will not state what they plan on doing with the data then that's just another strike against them in any request for said data.

If I were of a conspiratorial nature it would appear that AE911T knows that their actions will all but garuntee that they never see that data, and that this is exactly how they planned it from the outset so that they can continue bitching and taking $$ from the ranks of the gullible and the paranoid for a long time.

,,, but that would be a rather dark P.O.V., so I will wait on Chris to give us a summary of the analysis that AE911T will perform of that data, the more detailed the better of course. I do expect something better than 'AE911T will verify the data and results'.

[tfk]

Hey Chris7,

Would you like to meet two engineers who doesn't just pull crap out of their butts, but are actually working professionals in this field. They crunche numbers, do sophisticated modeling, analyze burning structures integrating fire modeling, thermodynamics & structural response of buildings to fires, and then publishe their peer reviewed results in peer reviewed engineering journals. (What a concept, eh ...?!)

http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/jgross.cfm


http://www.nist.gov/el/building_mate...mcallister.cfm

(kind of a hottie, if you asked me. Just my taste. I like smart women.)

And, whaddaya know, both of them were principle investigators on the WTC7 building's response to fire.

Of course, I bet neither of them have your invaluable experience … selling hammers, loading amps on busses, etc.

In other words, they do - in the REAL world - just what you're talking about, except unlike you, Drs. Gross & McAllister have (far more than) a clue what they are talking about.

In fact, take a look at some of the work that they've done SINCE they performed much of the same work for WTC7.

Originally Posted by John Gross Publications Since 2008

Energy-Based Design Approach for Seismic Design: Energy Spectra
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Date Published: 2012-04-09
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=860314 - 24k

Fire Endurance Testing of Floor Systems Effects of Scale and Restraint
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Date Published: 2012-04-09
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=860666 - 24k

Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Long Thanh Phan, John L Gross, Therese P McAllister
Date Published: 2010-12-01
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=907295 - 26k

An Integrated Interactive Visualization and Analysis Environment to study the Impact of Fire on Building Structures
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Date Published: 2010-07-25
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=905636 - 26k

Final Report on the Collapse of the Dallas Cowboys Indoor Practice Facility, May 2, 2009 (NIST IR 7661)
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: John L Gross, Joseph A Main, Long Thanh Phan, Fahim H Sadek, Stephen A Cauffman, David P. Jorgensen
Date Published: 2010-01-26
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=904696 - 26k

Draft Report on the Collapse of the Dallas Cowboys Indoor Practice Facility, May 2, 2009 (NIST IR 7636) ***DRAFT for Public Comments (for final version, see NIST IR 7661)***
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: John L Gross, Joseph A Main, Long Thanh Phan, Fahim H Sadek, Stephen A Cauffman, David P. Jorgensen
Date Published: 2009-10-06
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=903920 - 26k

Visualization of Structural Behavior under Fire
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Dilip K Banerjee, William J. Hess, Thomas M Olano, Judith Ellen Terrill, John L Gross
Date Published: 2009-08-12
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=903469 - 25k

But wait, there's more:

Originally Posted by "Therese McAllister's publications

June 2012 Errata to Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9)
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Therese P McAllister
Date Published: 2012-06-27
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=911719 - 23k

April 2012 Errata for Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9)
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Therese P McAllister
Date Published: 2012-05-16
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=911106 - 23k

Cross-sectional stability of structural steel at elevated temperatures
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Therese P McAllister, Mina Samir Seif
Date Published: 2012-04-19
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=910610 - 24k

Resilience of the Built Environment: A White Paper
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Therese P McAllister
Date Published: 2011-09-26
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=909745 - 22k

Load Combination Requirements in ASCE Standard 7-10: New Developments
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Date Published: 2011-04-14
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=907587 - 24k

Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Date Published: 2010-12-01
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=907295. - 26k

Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Long Thanh Phan, John L Gross, Therese P McAllister
Date Published: 2010-12-01
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=907295 - 26k

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF WTC 7 FLOOR SYSTEMS TO FIRE
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Date Published: 2010-05-12
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=904926 - 24k

Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse
NIST Manuscript Publication Search.
Authors: Therese P McAllister, Robert S. MacNeill, Omer O Erbay, Andrew T Sarawit, Mehdi S Zarghamee, Steven W Kirkpatrick, John L Gross
Date Published: 2009-06-17
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=902588 - 26k

Amazing, no?

"Fire Endurance Testing of Floor Systems Effects of Scale and Restraint"

"Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings"

"An Integrated Interactive Visualization and Analysis Environment to study the Impact of Fire on Building Structures"

"Visualization of Structural Behavior under Fire"
___

Let's take a look at a portion of the table of contents of one paper on which they collaborated, shall we?

Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance
Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings
Long T. Phan, Therese P. McAllister, John L. Gross, Morgan J. Hurley

Originally Posted by Table_of_Contents

Chapter1 Introduction...................................... .................................................. .........1
1.1 Basic Evacuation Concepts and Goals............................................. .......................................1
1.2 Purpose of these Guidelines........................................ .................................................. ..........3
1.3 Scope .................................................. .................................................. ..................................4
1.4 References .................................................. .................................................. ...........................5

Chapter2 Existing Guidelines for Fire Resistance
Design of Concrete and Steel Structures .................................................. ................................................. 7
2.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. .........................7
2.2 Legislative Environment .................................................. .................................................. .....7
2.2.1 PrescriptiveCodes................................. .................................................. ...................7
2.2.2 Performance-Based Codes............................................. .............................................7
2.2.3 Eurocodes .................................................. .................................................. ................9
2.3 Structural Design for Fire Conditions........................................ .............................................9
2.3.1 Design Objectives .................................................. .................................................. ...9
2.3.2 Design Process .................................................. .................................................. ........9
2.3.3 Loads for Structural Fire Design............................................ ...................................10
2.3.4 Design Equation.......................................... .................................................. ............10
2.4 Levels of Sophistication in the Design Process .................................................. ..................11
2.5 FireSeverity...................................... .................................................. ..................................12
2.5.1 Fire Severity for Design............................................ ................................................12
2.5.2 Standard Fire Exposure .................................................. ...........................................12
2.5.3 Realistic Fire Exposure .................................................. ...........................................14
2.5.4 Time Equivalence .................................................. .................................................. .15
2.6 Fire Resistance of Elements Exposed to the Standard Fire .................................................. 16
2.6.1 Failure Criteria .................................................. .................................................. ......17
2.6.2 Approvals .................................................. .................................................. ..............17
2.7 Fire Resistance of Buildings Exposed to Real Fires............................................. ................18
2.7.1 Design of Steel Buildings Exposed to Fire .................................................. .............18
2.7.2 Multi-story Frame Buildings......................................... ............................................18
2.8 MaterialsStandards................................ .................................................. .............................19
2.8.1 U.S.A............................................. .................................................. ..........................20
2.8.1.1 Steel............................................. .................................................. .............20
2.8.1.2 Concrete .................................................. .................................................. .21

Chapter3 Decision Framework for Fire Risk Mitigation........................................ .31
3.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. .......................31
3.2 Performance Objectives and Risk Assessment for Natural and Man-Made Hazards...........33
3.2.1 Performance-BasedEngineering.................................. ............................................33
3.2.2 Risk and Its Analysis—Hazard, Consequences, Context .........................................35
3.3 Fire Hazard Modeling .................................................. .................................................. .......39
3.3.1 Incidence of Fires............................................. .................................................. .......39
3.3.2 Characteristics of Fire Exposure Curves............................................ .......................41
3.4 Structural Engineering for Fire Conditions........................................ ...................................46
3.4.1 Performance Objective......................................... .................................................. ...46
3.4.2 General Fire Risk Mitigation Strategies .................................................. .................46
3.4.2.1 Event Control/Fire Protection Systems........................................... ...........47
3.4.2.2 Structural Engineering Analysis .................................................. ..............48
3.4.3 Structural Design by Engineering Analysis .................................................. ............48
3.4.3.1 Design-Basis Fire Scenarios .................................................. ....................48
3.4.3.2 Thermal Effects on Structural Components and Systems..........................49
3.4.3.3 Strength Requirements and Deformation Limits .......................................50
3.4.3.4 Required Attributes of Advanced Analysis ...............................................53
3.4.3.5 Simplified Methods of Analysis .................................................. ..............53
3.4.4 Structural Design by Performance-Based Testing........................................... .........54
3.5 Summary .................................................. .................................................. ...........................54
3.6 References........................................ .................................................. ...................................55
...

Chapter 5 Design of Steel Structures........................................ ............................. 121

5.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. ....................121
5.1.1 Scope .................................................. .................................................. ..................121
5.2 Material Properties........................................ .................................................. ....................121
5.2.1 Structural Steel............................................. .................................................. .........122
5.2.1.1 Thermal Properties of Steel .................................................. ...................122

5.2.1.1.1 Thermal Expansion of Steel .................................................. .122
5.2.1.1.2 Specific Heat of Steel............................................. ................125
5.2.1.1.3 Thermal Conductivity of Steel ...............................................126

5.2.1.2 Mechanical Properties of Steel .................................................. ..............128

5.2.1.2.1 Stress-Strain Relationship – Eurocode Approach..................130

5.2.1.2.2 Stress-Strain Relationship – NIST Approach ........................133
5.2.2 Fire Protection Materials......................................... ................................................14 1
5.2.2.1 Spray-Applied Fire-Resistive Materials (SFRM) ....................................142
5.2.2.2 Intumescent Coatings .................................................. .............................143
5.2.2.3 Gypsum Board Products .................................................. ........................145
5.2.2.4 Fibrous Board and Mat Products .................................................. ...........148
5.2.2.5 Concrete and Masonry .................................................. ............................148

5.3 DesignProcedures.................................. .................................................. ..........................149
5.3.1 Design by Qualification Testing .................................................. ...........................149
5.3.1.1 IndividualProtection.............................. .................................................. 151
5.3.1.2 Structural Steel Columns .................................................. .......................152
5.3.1.3 Steel Framed Floors and Roofs .................................................. ..............152
5.3.1.4 Steel Trusses .................................................. ..........................................152
5.3.1.5 Connections....................................... .................................................. ......153

5.3.2 Design by Engineering Analysis.......................................... ...................................154
5.3.2.1 Heat Transfer Analysis .................................................. ..........................154
5.3.2.2 Critical Temperatures...................................... .........................................157
5.3.2.3 Simple Calculation Models............................................ ..........................159
5.3.2.4 Advanced Calculation Models............................................ .....................162

5.4 References........................................ .................................................. .................................164

Gee, Chris. See anything in there that might be pertinent to the conversation?
These are just two of the dozens of engineers about whom you're claiming "I'm right & they're all wrong."

Or are you going to keep backing the "they're all liars & traitors" horse?

Gee, somehow they seem to have continued working in their field, unbothered by a bunch of wackos' accusations.

Imagine that ...?!


Tom

PS. Rumor had it that the Dallas Cowboys Indoor Practice Facility was CD'd with thermite, and that Jerry Jones was heard to say "pull it" just before it collapsed.

PPS. Although nobody saw any flashes of light & others reported he'd just finished off 3 chili dogs, and was holding out his index finger & smiling...

PPPS. A brief scan of their publications reveals no drawings rendered with Microsoft Paint. Perhaps you should write them & give them a little instruction on the use of this valuable engineering tool.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by tfk

Hey Chris7,

Would you like to meet two engineers who doesn't just pull crap out of their butts, but are actually working professionals in this field. They crunche numbers, do sophisticated modeling, analyze burning structures integrating fire modeling, thermodynamics & structural response of buildings to fires, and then publishe their peer reviewed results in peer reviewed engineering journals.

They have impeccable credentials as does Shyam Sunder. Unfortunately, they were given the task of trying to find a way for the fires to bring down WTC 7. They gave it their best shot but they had to distort facts, conduct fraudulent tests and lie to do it.

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

Who am I to question authority?

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They have impeccable credentials as does Shyam Sunder. Unfortunately, they were given the task of trying to find a way for the fires to bring down WTC 7. They gave it their best shot but they had to distort facts, conduct fraudulent tests and lie to do it.

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

Who am I to question authority?

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin

What does the hilited have ANYTHING to do with 911, or NIST's investigation of 7WTC?

Oh, right, NOTHING.

MS PaintFire is calling your name again....

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

In your dreams. That's just pure denial of the simple fact I just posted. The hot gasses cool as they spread out.

The gases were only produced for a couple of seconds?

[Animal]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

What does the hilited have ANYTHING to do with 911, or NIST's investigation of 7WTC?

Oh, right, NOTHING.

MS PaintFire is calling your name again....

Just another attempt by C7 at playing the three card monty

[triforcharity]

It's amazing that he accuses them of fraud in one breath but in the next says they have impeccable credentials. Amazing. They're highly qualified, hugely educated scientists, but care nothing about the scientific process and integrity.

Three card Monty? Maybe like one trick pony.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

It's amazing that he accuses them of fraud in one breath but in the next says they have impeccable credentials. Amazing. They're highly qualified, hugely educated scientists, but care nothing about the scientific process and integrity.

Three card Monty? Maybe like one trick pony.

It appears there can only be one arbitrer of what they cannot be questioned on and what they can. It is like they are the wholly private domain of one crusading truther, none other may question them: they are his.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They have impeccable credentials as does Shyam Sunder. Unfortunately, they were given the task of trying to find a way for the fires to bring down WTC 7. They gave it their best shot but they had to distort facts, conduct fraudulent tests and lie to do it.

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

Who am I to question authority?

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin

Really Chris, this is your evidence that NIST conducted fraudulent research?

I do remind you that no where in that statement is there any reference to the NIST WTC reports.
No NIST researcher, that's quite a few individuals, Chris, has ever stated that they were under any undue influence to change or manipulate their data or conclusions.
In short you have no evidence at all that NIST researchers were under any orders or influence to change, manipulate or alter their data, methods or conclusions.

Only your wishful thinking allows for that fantasy to be ture.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

It's amazing that he accuses them of fraud in one breath but in the next says they have impeccable credentials. Amazing. They're highly qualified, hugely educated scientists, but care nothing about the scientific process and integrity.

Three card Monty? Maybe like one trick pony.

No doubt he is a one trick pony........the three card monty reference is how he is trying to distract the focus to another topic of unrelated scientists, just like the three card monty operator tries to distract you from the target card.

[triforcharity]

Ok, gotcha. I didn't quite understand the three card monty thing... Perfect though!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They have impeccable credentials as does Shyam Sunder. Unfortunately, they were given the task of trying to find a way for the fires to bring down WTC 7. They gave it their best shot but they had to distort facts, conduct fraudulent tests and lie to do it.

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

Who am I to question authority?

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin

Here's the statement. No mention of NIST at all.


Here's the statement. No mention of NIST at all.



Here's the signatories, no Gage, No Fetzer, No Jones. There's two Hoffman's and a Hoffmann but none are relevent to 911 Truth.

One wonders why it is that this statement which Chris purports to be evidence of GWB malfeasance in the NIST report first of all makes no reference to any NIST docuement, nor has it any signatory that is a star of the 911 Truth movement. I have not checked so perhaps someone else might care to, is there ANY signatory to this statement who is a member of Sf911T or AE911T?


In point of fact the statement gives the names of individual scientists who balked at the rewriting and manipulation of their gov't sponsored reports and findings.
So if this is to be an example of the GWB admin's ability to have published a manipulated scientific report then its also an example of how this type of thing is NOT accepted by the gov't scientists who's work is manipulated. Thus, given the large number of researchers on the WTC reports one should expect at least a few of those people to raise the alarm that his/her work was odered to fit a set of predetermined conclusions or was manipulated into stating something other than what was found. Yet we have absolutely no one saying anything like that even 11 years after the fact.

Thus we can rightly assume that MacAllister and Gross stand by their work and conclusions, as well do the dozens of others who worked on the report(s)

Further to this I don't know why Chris chose to partially quote a news report of the statement rather than the actual statement itself, not bother to give a link to even the Glanz authored article. Certainly original sources are better than secondary sources, at least in the real world.

In short, Chris has nothing whatsoever to back the hilited portion of his post which I quoted above. Its nothing but fantasy created within his mind and that of the groupthink religious order, or cult, that is AE911T.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Ok, gotcha. I didn't quite understand the three card monty thing... Perfect though!

Or he believes he has the power of the force as in "these aren't the droids we are looking for"

Or a member of the Bene Gesserit (would require a sex change operation though)

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They have impeccable credentials as does Shyam Sunder.

Impeccable credentials on the part of Sunder, Gross & McAllister. Check.

Zero credentials on the part of Sarns / C7. Check.

Thank you for agreeing with my core point that you have zero qualifications to contradict Sunder, Gross or McAllister.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Unfortunately, they were given the task of trying to find a way for the fires to bring down WTC 7.

Nope. They were given the task of explaining the collapse.

They did that.

If you've got any evidence of a directive from anyone to NIST saying "you are instructed to find that fires brought down the towers", by all means, produce it.

Until you produce it, your statement is simply a lie.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They gave it their best shot but they had to distort facts, conduct fraudulent tests and lie to do it.

You've cast this accusation time & time again.

Every single time one of your "distortions" has been examined in detail, you have been shown to be utterly wrong, and NIST's conclusions have been shown to be both reasonable and supported by evidence, experienced judgment & sophisticated analysis.

That's exactly why you have stopped talking about WTC towers & focus now on WTC7.

Your WTC7 accusations are exactly as baseless as your earlier WTC towers accusations.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

1. Your citation is related to politicians writing about Global Warming. Nothing to do with NIST or 9/11.
2. The "Bush administration" wrote not one work of the NIST report. NIST engineers, academia engineers & industry engineers wrote it. Not politicians.
3. Your example PROVES beyond doubt that scientists & engineers will NOT kowtow to politicians. Or keep quiet when politicians try to change their findings.

Thanks for making our point for us.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Who am I to question authority?

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin

The report was written by experts.
Lots of people (including AE911T) got to question it.
Their questions were answered.

The sad fact is that a small group of incompetents, including you, didn't like the answers.

And now, a tiny group of sick & twisted minds equate "baseless accusations of fraud, distortion & lying" with "questioning".

Incompetence, I understand.

The other stuff is despicable.

[000063]

I really wish Chris would talk more about his top secret military/CIA explosives theory. I wonder why he doesn't like to discuss it?

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by tfk

Impeccable credentials on the part of Sunder, Gross & McAllister. Check.

Zero credentials on the part of Sarns / C7. Check.

Thank you for agreeing with my core point that you have zero qualifications to contradict Sunder, Gross or McAllister.

Nope. They were given the task of explaining the collapse.

They did that.

If you've got any evidence of a directive from anyone to NIST saying "you are instructed to find that fires brought down the towers", by all means, produce it.

Until you produce it, your statement is simply a lie.

You've cast this accusation time & time again.

Every single time one of your "distortions" has been examined in detail, you have been shown to be utterly wrong, and NIST's conclusions have been shown to be both reasonable and supported by evidence, experienced judgment & sophisticated analysis.

That's exactly why you have stopped talking about WTC towers & focus now on WTC7.

Your WTC7 accusations are exactly as baseless as your earlier WTC towers accusations.

1. Your citation is related to politicians writing about Global Warming. Nothing to do with NIST or 9/11.
2. The "Bush administration" wrote not one work of the NIST report. NIST engineers, academia engineers & industry engineers wrote it. Not politicians.
3. Your example PROVES beyond doubt that scientists & engineers will NOT kowtow to politicians. Or keep quiet when politicians try to change their findings.

Thanks for making our point for us.

The report was written by experts.
Lots of people (including AE911T) got to question it.
Their questions were answered.

The sad fact is that a small group of incompetents, including you, didn't like the answers.

And now, a tiny group of sick & twisted minds equate "baseless accusations of fraud, distortion & lying" with "questioning".

Incompetence, I understand.

The other stuff is despicable.

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
Murray N. Rothbard

Same for engineering, science, math.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
Murray N. Rothbard

Same for engineering, science, math.

but, but, but.....he is such an expert

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Speak for yourself. I was a carpenter for 40 years and a foundation to finish contractor for 35 years. I know framing and structure.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Animal

but, but, but.....he is such an expert

Well, he's perhaps more proficient at Microsoft Paint than Sunder.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

Well, he's perhaps more proficient at Microsoft Paint than Sunder.

I have run into a lok of trades people like Sarns on construction sites. They are probably the most dangerous people out there. They think that having done something for 'x' number of years somehow makes then an expert in the entire field.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

Well, he's perhaps more proficient at Microsoft Paint than Sunder.

Very True. I've renamed it MS PaintFire in honor of him...

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Here's the signatories, no Gage, No Fetzer, No Jones. There's two Hoffman's and a Hoffmann but none are relevent to 911 Truth.
.

Checked again, no Harrit either.

If anyone thinks of other 'stars' of 911T please check to see if they were signatories.

[tfk]

Lynn Margulis is there.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by tfk

Lynn Margulis is there.

Well at least it was close to her area of real expertise. Global Climate Change does involve biology.
I see she also denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS, prefering to believe that it is caused by changes to the immune system wrought by infection with syphillis and other spirochetes.

[tfk]

JD,

Yup. Scientists & engineers are subject to the same range of irrational thinking that afflicts the rest of humanity.

We are not robots. We are not Mr. Spock.

Training in science & engineering strongly encourages its practitioners to suppress - as much as possible - prejudice, bias, wishful thinking, confirmation bias, politics, etc. However, it can not eliminate these confounding factors. And there is a wide spectrum of susceptibility to each from individual to individual.

Dr. Margulis was well known for her highly contrarian & highly political viewpoints. On many subjects, not just 9/11.

Science history is rife with once brilliant individuals who, in their latter years, fall prey to wackiness. Newton (alchemy & biblical codes), AR Wallace (spiritualism), Watson (white intellectual supremacy), Crick (panspermia), Salk (vitamin C) ... the list goes on and on & on.

Dr. Margulis had zero training in any field that would allow her to speak as an expert. As a direct result, she has left her image on video, making some of the most outrageously brain-dead stupid comments a once competent scientist has ever uttered.

it's a shame.