Latest Polls after new NIST report

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ok Ultima... you win. We should just listen to lead envelope licker at the NSA for all that we need to know.

Why listen to hundreds of the leading scientist and engineers etc??

We have Roger M. ...aka "NSA Secret Agent Man."

Originally posted by beachnut
44 percent of internet poll takers lack knowledge of fire fighting and structures and can not read and understand the NIST report on WTC7.

Where did you get your fire fighter training?

Where did you get your structural engineering degree from?

I guess you did not read the NIST report that states they failed to recover any steel for testing?

reply to post by NIcon


NICON...

thanks for that info.... WTC7 .. (don't quote me) I believe was cleared up earlier due to the damage done to the Verizon building. Perhaps you can find info on that.

thanks again.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Ok Ultima... you win. We should just listen to lead envelope licker at the NSA for all that we need to know.

See you just keep proving you cannot read, or you would have seen my education and background on my transcripts. I guess you have to resort to names because you are out of evidence to debate me or support the officiall story?

Why listen to hundreds of the leading scientist and engineers etc??

You mean all the ones that question or speak out against the official story?




[edit on 22-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt

ThroatYogurt, it doesn't say specifically what happened to each building's debris. It just says that all the debris from the buildings was shipped to 4 sites and that they went through these sites looking for stuff to save. I would assume this would include WTC 7 because on page 31/112 it says "The volunteers searched through unsorted piles of steel and other debris for pieces from the WTC building, specifically searching for:..... Badly burned pieces from WTC 7" (third bullet point in the list)

Edited: building to buildings

[edit on 22-8-2008 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
ThroatYogurt, it doesn't say specifically what happened to each building's debris. It just says that all the debris from the buildings was shipped to 4 sites and that they went through these sites looking for stuff to save.

So it seems that the NIST latest report contridicts earlier reports as usual.

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.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
44 percent of internet poll takers lack knowledge of fire fighting and structures and can not read and understand the NIST report on WTC7.

Where did you get your fire fighter training?

Where did you get your structural engineering degree from?

I guess you did not read the NIST report that states they failed to recover any steel for testing?

I am an engineer, it seems I leaned enough at college to understand fire fighting and steel, and fire. I can read and by using knowledge and sound judgment make conclusions on 9/11 that are rational based on evidence.

I have a masters degree in engineering and it seem sufficient to understand 9/11 and fire. I cheated and read extensively on other fires and found that high rise offices have come close to failing and falling, but the fires were fought and the water sprinklers worked. It seems like water stops damage from fire and helps the steel survive. How ever, some of the buildings that were on fire were totally destroyed and had to be taken down. Not a good sign for the people who lack knowledge on 9/11 and believe in the lies of CD and thermite. A grade school education is all hat is needed to understand the NIST report if you would read it.

I can tell you this, if you read the NIST report on WTC7 and continue to support the fantasy of CD, then you do not understand the NIST report or have a grasp of the evidence on WTC7.

I guess you failed to read the NIST report and find out there were no sounds of explosives.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

ULTIMA1, in that document I quoted it also says "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7." I'm not exactly sure what that means as I would assume there were differences between the towers and and building 7 materials. But to me this would be even more reason for Mr. Ashcroft to send the FBI to sit on all of it... why throw something out if you don't know what it is?

Originally posted by beachnut
I cheated and read extensively on other fires and found that high rise offices have come close to failing and falling, but the fires were fought and the water sprinklers worked.

I guess you missed the 1975 fire in the North tower that burned for 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel. This was before sprinklers and fire proofing was installed.

You must have also missed the several steel buidlings i have posted that had longer lasting fires and as much or more structural damage then the WTC buildings and DID NOT collapse.

Originally posted by NIcon
But to me this would be even more reason for Mr. Ashcroft to send the FBI to sit on all of it... why throw something out if you don't know what it is?

The point is that nothing should have been taken away due to the crimianl investigation going on.

My point also was the NIST reports state they failed to recover any steel from building 7. So how can we trust their last report if it does not contain proper information?



[edit on 22-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You must have also missed the several steel buidlings i have posted that had longer lasting fires and as much or more structural damage then the WTC buildings and DID NOT collapse.

What size airliners flew into those builds? Were their speeds comparable to that of the WTC aircraft? How much jet fuel was involved in those fires?

If they diidnt have planes fly into them (meaning thousands of tons of material travelling at 500mph+ crashing into them....with jet fuel....then your fires are irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

Originally posted by gavron
What size airliners flew into those builds?

I am sorry i forgot you have hard time reading facts. Maybe you can explain what airliner hit building 7?

Do you understand the fact that structural damage is structural damage no matter what it is caused by?

Do you also understand the fact that most reports state the WTC buildings withstood the planes impacts?

The steel buildings i showed had as much or more structual damage as the WTC buidlings and had longer lasting fires. Oh, and they DID NOT collapse.




[edit on 22-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The steel buildings i showed had as much or more structual damage as the WTC buidlings and had longer lasting fires. Oh, and they DID NOT collapse.

What was the structural damage to those buildings then? I would like to see what caused more damage than thousands of tons of force, moving at 500mph, loaded with fuel.

Originally posted by gavron
What was the structural damage to those buildings then?

Well if you would have read the information and looked at the photos i posted you would know the structural damage was casued by long lasting fires. A lot longer fires then were in any of the WTC buildings.

Also, how many times do i have to show the reports that state the towers withstood the planes impacts?




[edit on 22-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
I cheated and read extensively on other fires and found that high rise offices have come close to failing and falling, but the fires were fought and the water sprinklers worked.

I guess you missed the 1975 fire in the North tower that burned for 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel. This was before sprinklers and fire proofing was installed.

You must have also missed the several steel buidlings i have posted that had longer lasting fires and as much or more structural damage then the WTC buildings and DID NOT collapse.

Was the 75 fire fought? WTC7 was not fought and WTC7 had a lot of damage to help the fire propagate. I heard from an eyewitness who saw WTC7 on 9/11 up close and he said it was a raging fire and the building was leaning. Apples and oranges. Do you need help understanding fire like 44 percent of the people who lack knowledge on fires, steel, and firefighting. This is the reason 44 percent of the people are wrong, it is ignorance of fire issues.
Don't get upset if you do not understand fire, gee, most the world thought the earth was flat, this will not be the first time a majority was wrong.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well if you would have read the information and looked at the photos i posted you would know the structural damage was casued by long lasting fires.

So your only basis for it having more damage is your picture? The buildings only damage was caused by fire, and didnt involve tons and tons of material slamming into it at 500mph?

I guess you agree then with the official reports. It said the plane impact itself didnt cause the collapse, and the fires themselves did not cause the collapse. It was a combination of the impact, and resulting fires, that started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.

Thank you for confirming that

Originally posted by gavron
So your only basis for it having more damage is your picture?

NO, its combination of the facts about the buildings along with the photos. But then i guess you only look at pictures and cannot read the information.

I guess you agree then with the official reports.

Most of the official reports state the fire alone caused the collapse not a combination.

Only NIST stated it was a combination.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Only NIST stated it was a combination.

Umm... (points to the topic of this thread).

NIST report poll. Remember? We are talking about the NIST report.

Yes, the reports say that the buildings withstood the impact. That was pretty obvious anyway, we all could see that… most reports go on to say that the damage caused by the impact did compromise the structure, in addition to extreme heat, leading to the collapse. That is also pretty logical.

Maybe the reason you don’t understand the reports is you don’t read them completely, just pick out the parts that fit your story. You also seem to use the same report to support some things, yet dispute others. If the report is good enough for one, why not the other?

Who exactly would you believe?


[edit on 22-8-2008 by Jake the Dog Man]

reply to post by gavron


Ugh Gavron your posts are painful to read.

Just curious, how do you explain the pools of molten metal found at the bottom of WTC buildings 6 weeks after the impact?

Even though polls such as these will be affected by 'herd mentality' I believe they are a good representation of where things are at.

Good work Ultima keep it up, IMO the septics will have to eat their words someday.

Peace