A New Fire Challenge!

Camping was great thanks.

Fire. All about Fire in this link compliments of NIST:

www.youtube.com...

Here is the source of the claim you are looking for. I love the part
when he says, " a new phenomenom" (8:15)!

www.youtube.com...

More:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Well, that's two links direct from NIST that claim fires took down WTC 7

I love the Q&A videos (watch'em); Shyam sounds and looks like a Sham.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by turbofan]

I haven't time to watch them now I'm afraid, although I'll certainly check them out later.

I was hoping for a direct quote from the NIST report, because when I read it I couldn't find the claim that you alluded to.

LMAO!

Shyam gets owned by a reporter:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
Well, I have no idea what you mean.

No comment

Like mentioned in the original post, we need all the connections to fail
simultaneously.

Really. How long before the total collapse of WTC 7 did the penthouse collapse? 6 seconds? 8 seconds? 9 seconds?

You still need all the connections to fail simultaneously? Want to rephrase that? Or is this more Pilot logic?

WHY?

you still need an instant release, universally, to get what WE ALL SAW

and WHAT happened when that ONE vertical support under the East Pent House was taken out....the weight above fell in, because the support was taken out from underneath it

you can not remove support, and have, what is being supported, REMAIN

there is NO "PHASE" of vertical support "PROGRESSIVELY", failing inside the building, while the roof, facade, HVAC, and other PH, MAGICALLY, float in the air

NOW, take that into consideration when you see the ENTIRE building, as soon as the kink is formed, EVENLY falling as fast as an object can fall, through the AIR

from fire that NEVER effected perimeter vertical support???

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.

7 is the smoking gun that will bring out ALL that happened on 9-11

the pathetic attempt to cover up by NIST is so obvious it's comical

all people have to do is focus on 7 when they try to inform 'others' about 9-11...just what we see on ALL videos is physically imposable for the circumstances that were given for cause...buildings do not do that NATURALLY

nothing on 9-11 was a NATURAL event

we don't need the thermite, space beams, no planes, missiles...etc...

ONLY bld 7 and the pathetic, one way, NIST HYPOTHESIS



This is what Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST had to say about free fall ACCELERATION, during the NIST Q&A before the FINAL report came out, when there was NO MENTION of free fall ACCELERATION from NIST, at around three min into the video posted below...

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=channel_page

so what happened to 100+ft. of vertical support to have occur, what WE ALL SEE.....the EVEN decent, as fast as falling through AIR

SO, lead investigators OWN words......ff ACCELERATION can ONLY occur, when there is NO structural component below it...and yet, when the kink is formed, WE SEE the ENTIRE building EVENLY falling .......AS fast AS AN OBJECT CAN FALL THROUGH THE air...

BECAUSE THERE ARE NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT

Does ANY ONE else see a problem here?

Okay, I watched the last one. He doesn't get "owned" in any sense.

Just a quote from NIST to substantiate your claim, please. Otherwise we're going to have to conclude that

- this thread has been a complete waste of time

- my claim on page one -- "you package together a series of assertions as fact, and then ask dissenters to satisfy an illogical scenario of your own creation" -- is, sadly, correct.

reply to post by hgfbob


There are quite a few problems with the NIST report, where do we start?

Aside from the NIST issues, there are certain members here that can't
seem to find specific quotes within videos when SHAM states fire was the
primary cause of failure for all the structural connections.

I'm pretty sure most, if not all the video links I provided show SHAM
admitting that fire was responsible for 'thermally expanding' the floors

Of course, this happened over a 7 hour period...but the building came down
all together ... ummm... contradiction?

Invisible raging fires from within that nobody could see through the mostly
glass building? Good thing there were a few open windows to feed more
oxygen to those invisible raging fires...deep within...that nobody could see!

I bet I could write a few pages of quotes from SHAM that would make us all laugh.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


I have been building, both steel and stick, for the past 25 years....buildings do not behave like this, as a natural effect to itself

there are unseen forces at work.....aka "invisible fire"




[edit on 21-9-2009 by hgfbob]

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by hgfbob

 

There are quite a few problems with the NIST report, where do we start?

Aside from the NIST issues, there are certain members here that can't
seem to find specific quotes within videos when SHAM states fire was the
primary cause of failure for all the structural connections.

I'm pretty sure most, if not all the video links I provided show SHAM
admitting that fire was responsible for 'thermally expanding' the floors

Of course, this happened over a 7 hour period...but the building came down
all together ... ummm... contradiction?

Invisible raging fires from within that nobody could see through the mostly
glass building? Good thing there were a few open windows to feed more
oxygen to those invisible raging fires...deep within...that nobody could see!

I bet I could write a few pages of quotes from SHAM that would make us all laugh.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by turbofan]

I'm sorry, but this just won't do.

You stated that in order for the NIST account of the collapse to be correct there would have to be

a fuel source that can burn for six hours, keeping a min. temperature of 800'C, [to] bring the building down

I responded that

you package together a series of assertions as fact, and then ask dissenters to staisfy an illogical scenario of your own creation

To which you replied (emphasis mine)

I didn't state it as fact, NIST is the organization that made the claim.

You did read the report, or at least view the conference?

Well, I did read the report. And I asked you where NIST had claimed what you said they did - that fires burning at constant temperatures of over 800 degrees were the cause of the collapse.

You have so far been unable to do this. Either have the good grace to admit that - as I pointed out initially - your premise was flawed, that you hadn't read or had misread the paper, or provide me with a direct quote from the report please.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Ahhhh Trick, your level of aptitude is lacking when reading through the
challenge.

If NIST says fire was the cause of GLOBAL collapse, then you must infer
that the fire should be hot enough to melt the steel in order to create
such failures.

Steel melts (molten) at about 1300'C, so this thermal expansion that
SHAM talks about, should occur at approximately half the critical temperature...no?

education.jlab.org...

Tell you what, I'll make it easy on you. You tell me how hot the fires
were in order for this first time event to unfold, and we'll go from there.
Try to provide a reference to support your temperature...cause that's
good research.

Also keep in mind that the columns in this building were fireproofed,
and your fuel source must be able to maintain your specified temperature
without fading off (like real fires do). If you do not agree with this,
please provide an explanation/example of a fire that does not decrease
in temperature over time, while giving us some sort of scientific reason
of where the fire receives additional energy.

Bonus Points: SHAM said the fire must have traveled across the entire
span of the floor in order to fail all of the connections. Showing a video/
photo of fire across an entire floor would bring more credibility to your
answer.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by turbofan]

No, no, no. I'm not going to accept another "challenge" - indeed I never accepted the first one, since the whole point of my response was to show that the "challenge" itself was flawed.

Let's go through it again. Here you are earlier, on the "fuel source that can burn for six hours, keeping a min. temperature of 800'C, and bring the building down"

I didn't state it as fact, NIST is the organization that made the claim.

Once again I ask - where in the report does it say this?

If you can't provide a direct quote then I'm going to conclude that you asserted something earlier in this thread - indeed it was pretty much the whole point of the thread - which you now cannot substantiate.

Have the class to admit as much and move on.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Awwww, come on Trick...

OK, NIST did not word for word state what I typed. Fair enough.

However, they DID state that fire was the cause of the global collapse.

So PLEASE explain how fire achieved this feat, and provide a fuel source
that can sustain such long durations while keeping a flame temperature
hot enough to MAINTAIN a steel 'softening' point.

Remember, as the steel cools, it regains its strength.

P.S. I'll even edit the OP to make you happy!

(sorry, the edit feature is no longer available. Please refer to this post
as our starting point "Trick" and we'll go from here.)

[edit on 21-9-2009 by turbofan]