Richard Gage Debates a Member of International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by billybob

 

Goofy! Perhaps the snowball analogy was not the best.

Please show me where NIST "Gave up" or retract that lie.

better yet, YOU claim that NIST has already explained what happened to wtc7.

please, tell us what they reported in specific, scientific, predictable terms.

when i say they "gave up" i mean, they are trying to farm the work(and, LIABILITY for the work) out to subcontractors. i am also referring to the FACT that they promised a report on wtc7 YEARS ago, and have been stalling YEARS past the deadline they set for themselves.

i don't lie.

the snowball analogy is FINE.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by billybob]

[edit on 25-11-2007 by billybob]

id have thought and avalanche analogy would have been better though i know its not exactly the same by any means. just would have been a better visual lol.

but the question was asked and i think its important....why did so much of the debris hit the ground before the rest of the tower if the tower was in freefall? (relating to wtc 1&2, not so much observed with wtc7)

Originally posted by Damocles
but the question was asked and i think its important....why did so much of the debris hit the ground before the rest of the tower if the tower was in freefall?

Exactly. NIST tried to justify the Kean Commission's collapse times by saying they were timings of how long it took the first debris to hit the ground, that's what those times are now supposed to be.

You can watch a building collapse and trace it along with your finger (the collapse seems to retain the same velocity the whole way down -- a strong indication of control) and a more realistic time for the collapse of the exterior structure is ~16 seconds.

WTC7's roof accelerated downwards at almost exactly 9.8m/s^2.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by billybob

 

Goofy! Perhaps the snowball analogy was not the best.

Please show me where NIST "Gave up" or retract that lie.

This would have been a better example for 1 and 2's collapse.

Originally posted by Damocles
id have thought and avalanche analogy would have been better though i know its not exactly the same by any means.

the snowball analogy is better. adhesion of snow to itself is more similiar to a welded structure than a loose pile of rubble which is not adhering to itself.
an avalanche can pick up speed and momentum because it is loose material.
i guess in a way, it does help to see the difference of scale between a snowman and a mountain peak, but what must also be scaled is the adhesion characteristics. "big" snow does not have stronger bonds than "small" snow, however, big buildings DO have MUCH stronger bonds than a loose pile of steel.

reply to post by billybob


Where did I say NIST explained WTC7? YOU calimed they gave up.... That is a lie. They have given a preliminary hypothisis and it is a working hypothisis at that.

Here is the most recent update:

NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

If you need to contact someone at NIST... here is some info:

Michael E. Newman
(301) 975-3025
[email protected]

www.nist.gov...


If anyone is looking for up to date info on WTC-7 here is the link:

wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by billybob

 

BB ~


I don't know the damage that was done inside WTC7, I only go by what the witnesses there stated and by the limited photographic and video evidence. NIST is also still working on the reasons. Why did it fall so fast? well, I guess you have to determine how much damage was done by the falling debris and the fires that occured for several hours after that.

Again, until i see evidence that supports a CD, I will stick to the officail reports and the reports by those that were actually there.

this post suggests that demolition has been disproven, already, by official reports.

"i will stick to the officail reports"...

there is no official report, and in fact, the 911 commission makes no mention of wtc7.

so, sticking to the official reports means sticking to vacuum.

you seem to think that the building was definitely brought down by "falling debris and the fires that occured for several hours after that".
there is no official report stating this happened. you insinuate that there is one.

please stop calling me a liar.

i don't lie.

if you're going by what witnesses said, why do you ignore the multitude of reports about bombs and explosions? or for building seven, the report of a "massive shockwave"at collapse initiation, and videos of mysterious workers and policemen warning people it's about to "BLOW UP". why would you ignore that?

the evidence that supports a CD is symmetrical freefall(wtc7).

reply to post by billybob


BB ~

NIST is claiming (as I posted) that they :

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

you said:

freefall is observed. WTC7's walls. NIST cannot explain it. they gave up trying, and are now just giving everyone the runaround about it.

Sorry for using such a harsh term as "liar", but is this statement from you accurate? They did not give up trying. They are still working on it.

I'm not trying to be a ball buster BB, just trying to stick to the facts. Please tell me how long it took for WTC7 to collapse.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I'm not trying to be a ball buster BB, just trying to stick to the facts. Please tell me how long it took for WTC7 to collapse.

WTC7's entire roof line accelerated downwards at 9.8m/s^2.

"How long" it took is irrelevant to the problem the above fact raises.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I'm not trying to be a ball buster BB, just trying to stick to the facts. Please tell me how long it took for WTC7 to collapse.

WTC7's entire roof line accelerated downwards at 9.8m/s^2.

"How long" it took is irrelevant to the problem the above fact raises.

exactly.

irrelevant.

reply to post by billybob


What is relevant is the fact that we don't know the extent of the damage done to the structure inside from the debris and hours of fire. The penthouse started collapsing about 5 1/2 seconds prior to the rest of the building.

what is relevant is the symmetrical freefall descent of the outer walls of a 47 story building.
what is relevant is people warning others the building was going to 'blow up'.
what is relevant is the media blackout on even mentioning building seven; we saw the impacts and collapses of 1 and 2 umpteen thousand times over the ensuing months, but they stopped showing 7 right away.
what is relevant is the security officer who worked in 7, who said he was going down the stairwell before ANY building had collapsed, heard a huge explosion inside wtc7, and then was not able to get to ground level because the stairwell he was using was GONE.
what is relevant is the BBC reporting it("the solomon building(wtc7) has COLLAPSED") nearly a half hour before it happened.
what is relevant is the constant slips of the tongue by rumsfeld and bush describing things that didn't happen(officially), yet which are all part of conspiracy "theory".
what is relevant is the use of 911 to transform USA into a military dictatorship and to destroy american's rights 'guaranteed' by the constitution.

Originally posted by billybob
what is relevant is the symmetrical freefall descent of the outer walls of a 47 story building.

What information do you have that shows the extent of the damage done by the falling skyscraper, and the damge done by the fires there after?

what is relevant is people warning others the building was going to 'blow up'.

IT was WELL KNOWN that the building quite possibly was going to collapse. HENCE a "collapse zone" was put in place. You are going to cherry pick a person that stated Blow up? Come on BB!

what is relevant is the media blackout on even mentioning building seven; we saw the impacts and collapses of 1 and 2 umpteen thousand times over the ensuing months, but they stopped showing 7 right away.

This is another ...um I wont say "lie" but is a disingenuous statement. There was not a media black out at all! We all watched the building fall LIVE! There was a perimeter set by that allowed NO ONE but appropriate officals NEAR the area. Do you even recall how dangerous the WTC was at the time? Remember rescue efforts were haulted becasue of the fear that it may collapse? What is with you posting such rubbish?? They didn't STOP reporting anything. I watched that collaspe several times throughout the night. No it wasn't as much as the towers...probably because the building was empty.

what is relevant is the security officer who worked in 7, who said he was going down the stairwell before ANY building had collapsed, heard a huge explosion inside wtc7, and then was not able to get to ground level because the stairwell he was using was GONE.

How did he know? How did he know if a building had collasped? He was in a building. His time line is sketchy at best. Barry Jenning was supposed to be this massive whistle blower for Loose Change Final Cut...is he on there now? Hmmmm

what is relevant is the BBC reporting it("the solomon building(wtc7) has COLLAPSED") nearly a half hour before it happened.

Was it Peter Jennings that said... "What we have feard all afternoon has happened" In regards to WTC7...the reports were that it was not stable and appeared to be going to collaspe.......And...if the BBC was reporting it in advance...what happened to your "Media Black - Out?"

what is relevant is the constant slips of the tongue by rumsfeld and bush describing things that didn't happen(officially), yet which are all part of conspiracy "theory".

you'll have to be more specific

what is relevant is the use of 911 to transform USA into a military dictatorship and to destroy american's rights 'guaranteed' by the constitution.

I agree the Bush used 911 and his scare tactics to lead us to an unjust war. I hate him. We can agree on that. BUT... i haven't lost any rights.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]

CO(2), i think you may be causing global warming with all the hot air you spew.
i'll leave petty semantical battles in the recycle bin with last week's news.

i won't put you on 'real' ignore(because i feel the public at large needs to be defended), but consider yourself to be in my recycle bin for now.

wtc7 fell in 6.6 seconds, .6 seconds longer than the 6 seconds of freefall for this 47 storey building.
all four corner columns, and all exterior columns(20 or forty, i don't know exactly, .....LOTS of them) HAD to be severed at EXACTLY the same moment for the building to descend with the geometric perfection observed.
NO FIRE or ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE is going to instantly sever dozens of columns at the exact same instant causing a PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL collapse.

okay, the collapse did lean slightly towards ground zero, and away from the surrounding buildings, un-coincidentally, so "perfectly symmetrical collapse", should be read as "perfect collapse" for the purposes of silverstein and associates.

Originally posted by billybob
wtc7 fell in 6.6 seconds, .6 seconds longer than the 6 seconds of freefall for this 47 storey building.

Let me offer to revise this: WTC7's entire roof line accelerated at 9.8m/s^2.


There, now the Penthouse collapse time is irrelevant because "collapse time" is not ultimately the point.

Originally posted by billybob
CO(2), i think you may be causing global warming with all the hot air you spew.
i'll leave petty semantical battles in the recycle bin with last week's news.

In other words, you can't respond to the facts.

i won't put you on 'real' ignore(because i feel the public at large needs to be defended), but consider yourself to be in my recycle bin for now.

Hey BB... I promise not to get upset if you do end up ignoring me. Perhaps you not having to talk to someone who deals with fact in here....will allow you to sleep better at night.

wtc7 fell in 6.6 seconds, .6 seconds longer than the 6 seconds of freefall for this 47 storey building.
all four corner columns, and all exterior columns(20 or forty, i don't know .........

Quote trimmed..... NISt has yet to release their final report... although I am not holding my breath, I look forward to it.

Let me know when you feel like responding to the...lies.... i mean... the "mistakes" you have posted.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What information do you have that shows the extent of the damage done by the falling skyscraper, and the damge done by the fires there after?

only a building that is still standing, and a lack of evidence SHOWING damage.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
IT was WELL KNOWN that the building quite possibly was going to collapse. HENCE a "collapse zone" was put in place. You are going to cherry pick a person that stated Blow up? Come on BB!

the propaganda says "it was well known", however, real life experience has taught us that steel framed buildings do not collapse from spotty, invisible flames. what would make people 'expect' something that has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE? do you have evidence of white hot flames inside wtc7? i can see windows blown out that show NO SMOKE, and NO FIRE. in fact MOST of the broken out windows have NO SMOKE coming from them.

the "collapse zone" is exactly the same as a "demolition zone", so that's a pretty weak argument. they knew it was going to "blow up"(said by more than one person), and so they moved people back out of harm's way, AND outside of a range that they could witness anything specific about 'collapse initiation'.

Originally posted by CaptainObviousThis is another ...um I wont say "lie" but is a disingenuous statement. There was not a media black out at all! We all watched the building fall LIVE! .....snip....

the media had no problem on and shortly after 9/11 showing the collapse of seven, liar, er, spinner. however, in the following YEARS, the event 'disappeared' from the mainstream, along with the ANTHRAX MAILINGS story.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
How did he know? How did he know if a building had collasped? He was in a building. His time line is sketchy at best. Barry Jenning was supposed to be this massive whistle blower for Loose Change Final Cut...is he on there now? Hmmmm

if a 110 storey steel building falls in 12 seconds and everyone is around to hear, does it still make a sound?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Was it Peter Jennings that said... "What we have feard all afternoon has happened" In regards to WTC7...the reports were that it was not stable and appeared to be going to collaspe.......And...if the BBC was reporting it in advance...what happened to your "Media Black - Out?"

holy reverse logic, batman! get the non-sequitor repellent! if the media is complicit, then 'expecting' a collapse is expected, and reporting early is an obvious screw-up by the perps.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

you'll have to be more specific

seeing something on teevee that never happened(bush/the first impact)
reporting that the terrorists used "planes and missiles"(rumsfeld)
reporting that flight 93 was "shot down"(rumsfeld)

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I agree the Bush used 911 and his scare tactics to lead us to an unjust war. I hate him. We can agree on that. BUT... i haven't lost any rights.

perhaps you haven't said, "praise allah, arrest bush!" loudly or often enough.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by billybob]

How can NIST give a report on what caused building 7 to collapse when the did not recover any steel from builidng 7 to test?

wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



Ahhh... But you can determine it was a controlled demolition by just looking at it! Pretty interesting statement Ultima.

reply to post by billybob



your entire post in nothing but a rant. Calling the firefighters testimony "propaganda" is pathetic.

Saying the media was involved is a joke.

You have ZERO proof for your entire post and have nothing to back the lies I have pointed out to you.