WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[eots]

I guess it's better to believe in a mistake laden theory then anything else.

Oh well

.

so thats your philosophy ..explains a lot is this how you deal with the fact the NIST computer simulations are clearly a fraud

 

[eots]

Are Terral and eots for real or just trolls?

Have you had the fortune (LOL) of reading some of 9/11 was an inside job's posts? That dude is 51 cards short of a full deck.

your post is a perfect example of what losers do when they cant support there argument

So I guess you think Terral is a loser because his WTC7 theory is full of lies, mistakes, and incorrect information?

Got it.

no I think you are because you cant address the points

 

[Gamolon]

your post is a perfect example of what losers do when they cant support there argument

So I guess you think Terral is a loser because his WTC7 theory is full of lies, mistakes, and incorrect information?

Got it.

no I think you are because you cant address the points

So you believe Terral and support his WTC7 theory even though his theory is laden with mistakes AND that he debunks himself with his own photo?

I just wanted to make sure I was correctly interpreting your intelligence level.

 

[Gamolon]

explains a lot is this how you deal with the fact the NIST computer simulations are clearly a fraud

Can you explain in your own words how the simulations are frauds? Or do you just parrot videos and other people's quotes because you truly don't understand?

 

[eots]

the collapse sequence only runs to the initiation of the collapse it tweaks all of the data no matter how improbable to create a collapse and even then it clearly does not represent the reality of what is seen in the collapse

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]

 

[eots]

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Gamolon]

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So I guess since you repsect Mr. Quintiere's opinion so much and that he is a well educated person in his field, then I guess his conclusion in his paper which STILL BLAMES fire induced collapse, just that the fire affected a different structural element, that you believe him right?

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

Well eots?

 

[DiveCon]

Nice catch! I didn't even see that one!

Are Terral and eots for real or just trolls?

Have you had the fortune (LOL) of reading some of 9/11 was an inside job's posts? That dude is 51 cards short of a full deck.

9/11 has his head so far up Terral's and eots' behinds that he doesn't know which way is up anymore.

He supports Terral'sWTC7 ramblings even though there are mistakes all over them.

Go figure.

I guess it's better to believe in a mistake laden theory then anything else.

Oh well.

he supports goof-o-pheras crap too, and both terral and goof-o-phera think the other are disinfo agents

 

[DiveCon]

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So I guess since you repsect Mr. Quintiere's opinion so much and that he is a well educated person in his field, then I guess his conclusion in his paper which STILL BLAMES fire induced collapse, just that the fire affected a different structural element, that you believe him right?

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

Well eots?

btw, thats Dr. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer

 

[Gamolon]

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So I guess since you repsect Mr. Quintiere's opinion so much and that he is a well educated person in his field, then I guess his conclusion in his paper which STILL BLAMES fire induced collapse, just that the fire affected a different structural element, that you believe him right?

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

Well eots?

btw, thats Dr. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer

Come on eots. What have you got to say now? He supports fire induced collapse, just that a different structural element failed due to fire, that being the floor trusses.

 

[eots]

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So I guess since you repsect Mr. Quintiere's opinion so much and that he is a well educated person in his field, then I guess his conclusion in his paper which STILL BLAMES fire induced collapse, just that the fire affected a different structural element, that you believe him right?

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

Well eots?

btw, thats Dr. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer

ONLY A FOOL LIKE YOU WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT DIVE.. STOP LYING..THE MAN SAYS HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE MORE LIKELY THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..WHY DONT YOU JUST LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF


Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

 

[eots]

So I guess since you repsect Mr. Quintiere's opinion so much and that he is a well educated person in his field, then I guess his conclusion in his paper which STILL BLAMES fire induced collapse, just that the fire affected a different structural element, that you believe him right?


Well eots?

btw, thats Dr. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer

Come on eots. What have you got to say now? He supports fire induced collapse, just that a different structural element failed due to fire, that being the floor trusses.

THATS FINE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS NIST FAILED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[DiveCon]

So I guess since you repsect Mr. Quintiere's opinion so much and that he is a well educated person in his field, then I guess his conclusion in his paper which STILL BLAMES fire induced collapse, just that the fire affected a different structural element, that you believe him right?


Well eots?

btw, thats Dr. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer

ONLY A FOOL LIKE YOU WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT DIVE.. STOP LYING..THE MAN SAYS HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE MORE LIKELY THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..WHY DONT YOU JUST LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF


Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

i have'
you dont
you try to twist his words

 

[DiveCon]

btw, thats Dr. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer

Come on eots. What have you got to say now? He supports fire induced collapse, just that a different structural element failed due to fire, that being the floor trusses.

THATS FINE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS NIST FAILED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

he doesnt support your "controlled demolition" BS and he thinks you troofers are nutters

 

[Hollybaere]

So you believe Terral and support his WTC7 theory even though his theory is laden with mistakes AND that he debunks himself with his own photo?

I just wanted to make sure I was correctly interpreting your intelligence level.

Then how about YOU Gamolon, point by point, show us ALL, how Terral's WTC7 theory is "laden with mistakes"??

Before you begin, you cannot use anything from NIST, because their facts have already been proven to have been altered and changed as new and real scientific information has been brought to light.

Also, you might want to explain how BBC knew that WTC7 fell BEFORE it fell.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW_JRe67v1g&p=612A3AC9E574DB5B&playnext=1&index=18]YouTube - BBC Announces WTC7 Collapse Before It Happens![/ame]

Also, you might want to explain what the explosions that were heard just before WTC7 fell, and why the Fireman said "that building is gonna come down soon".

You Fairy Tale Believers can change threads into peanut butter conversations, you can make fun and ridicule., you can claim anything you want, BUT..............
You cannot dispute the truth.

I know it is hard to accept the fact that people we are supposed to trust, look up to and rely on, are able to lie to and decieve us for their own greed. And that is why they have gotten away with their crimes for so long. They know that the truth is much to painful to believe, so they hide behind lies and Fairy Tales and IDIOTS like you not only promote them, but believe them too.

Oh, and then while you are at it, please explain how when The 5 Dancing Israeli's were questioned about why they were seen on that roof-top dancing and high-fiving while filming the Twin Towers collapse, why they said they were "there to document the event."? How did they know about something that was going to happen when NO ONE was supposed to know? Do you think the 19 Hijackers let them in on the plot? And what about the other white van that was stopped on the GW Bridge with traces of or explosives inside, also driven by Israeli Mossad agents?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VX8ijYihU]YouTube - 9/11 George Washington Bridge[/ame]

You might want to go here also, before you reply: Hidden Facts of 9/11

Now then, with all that being said, if you do so choose to make fun of me, or ridicule, or totally ignore this, we will know that you have no proof, would rather believe lies than truth and need to either inform yourself or shut up.

Thank you.

 

[eots]

Come on eots. What have you got to say now? He supports fire induced collapse, just that a different structural element failed due to fire, that being the floor trusses.

THATS FINE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS NIST FAILED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

he doesnt support your "controlled demolition" BS and he thinks you troofers are nutters

he told me you were his homosexual stalker...true story

 

[Gamolon]

THE MAN SAYS HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE MORE LIKELY THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..WHY DONT YOU JUST LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF


Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

Can you show me how "I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said" is the same as him saying "there are other scenarios "MORE LIKELY" than controlled demoltion"?

Because I'll tell you what eots. He CLEARLY states in his paper that his only other hypothesis is that the fire and heat failed the floor trusses. Here, I'll even quote his paper again for you:
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation.

So please provide the evidence that you have to show that he believes in more than one hypothesis because that would go against the conclusion in his paper.

Your turn.

 

[eots]

btw, thats Dr. Quintiere
and i have emailed the man and he is not a troofer

ONLY A FOOL LIKE YOU WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT DIVE.. STOP LYING..THE MAN SAYS HE BELIVES OTHER SCENRIOES ARE MORE LIKELY THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..WHY DONT YOU JUST LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF


Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

i have'
you dont
you try to twist his words

no I post his direct quotes released to the public..shit for brains

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Gamolon]

So you believe Terral and support his WTC7 theory even though his theory is laden with mistakes AND that he debunks himself with his own photo?

I just wanted to make sure I was correctly interpreting your intelligence level.

Then how about YOU Gamolon, point by point, show us ALL, how Terral's WTC7 theory is "laden with mistakes"??

I'll do that for you. Here we go.

First,
He claims that one of his photos contains a 45 degree cut column as proof that thermite was used. After I provided him with PROOF that he was sadly mistaken, he admitted to being wrong. Here's is the exact quote and the proof from me.

In case you missed it 9/11, here is Terral's admission of being wrong...

Greetings to Gamolon and All:

My congratulations to Gamolon for pointing out an inconsistency in my testimony on the WTC-7 Case. Rarely does anyone come along and point out blatant errors in my work, so I want to take the time and show everyone my mistake. My original photograph here has an error:

The circled area atop the photograph appears to be a 45-degree thermate cut, when in reality this red-iron I-beam is a disconnected segment. Gamolon used this picture (here) to show me the light. Note what appears to be a box column with a 45-degree angle cut like this (pic) is actually a red-iron I-beam like this:

Gamolon is 'right' on this point and I was definitely 'WRONG.' Again, I applaud him for taking the time to point out my error. I am going to return to my illustration today and make the required changes.

Second,
Here is a part of one of Terral's images that he annotated.

How can ANYONE say that the photo he uses contains "thermite signatures" and then turn around with a straight face and say that "none of the beams show signs of burns by fire"???? What???? Are you kidding me? I guess thermite doesn't burn that hot...

Third,
Terral tries to imply that the steel MELTED. That is not the case. As been stated throughout this board, steel does not need to melt in order to fail. This is a tactic used by Terral to mislead people.

Fourth,
He claims the entire collapse of WTC7 happened in 6.6 seconds. It has been proven that this is complete idiocy with videos. Go find them if you don't believe me.

Fifth,
He claims that beams are never cut at angles for a demolition, yet there are VIDEOS and photos showing workers doing just that. And look! He's using a torch!!! No thermite needed. See the sixth point below.

Sixth,
He claims that this photo is clear evidence of thermite residue:

Yet look here. A picture of torch cutting a steel block! Uh oh! Look at the "thermite slag" on that block!

Is that enough for you?

 

[eots]

. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation