WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[DiveCon]

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator

Why is it that you and your other stooges continually post claims and quotes WITHOUT the sources. Is that part of your game-plan? To quote mine and make up your own stuff so people can't make up their own minds?

Between you and 9/11 inside job, you two never quote what you are talking about. You want a "good debate" about subjects here, but refuse to make it easy to discuss by referring us to videos and past posts that supposedly contain the information.

So, I'll ask you this again. Please post the source to the quote where James Quintiere requested a scientific study of "hypothetical blast scenarios". Can you provide one or not? If not, we can all just assume that your making this crap up. Much like 9/11 inside job and his claim that steel only STARTS to melt at 2500F, yet provides no source for his claim and only gives us a mysterious "steel worker" who told him this.

This is a link to the search I did to get to his pdf paper (direct link can't be posted)

James Quintiere - Yahoo! Search Results

The guy does have some valid questions. But what is more interesting is that truthers like eots really point to him is their guy. Problem is, as far as I can tell he doesn't beleive it was an inside job either. He simply posits a different collapse scenario.

typical for troofers
they LIE

 

[DiveCon]

Here is the deal in a nutshell: There are only 'two' (count them) explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint CD-style in 6.6 seconds:

6.6 seconds?!

What the hell are you smoking? Your full of crap and I'll show you why. Look at this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0]YouTube - Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 - 02-22-07[/ame]

The collapse initiation STARTS at :25 in this video with part of the mechanical penthouse (left side of the video) collapsing into the building. Count how many seconds there are until the top of the rest of that penthouse starts it's way down. I get to :32 of the video. That's 7 seconds right there. Do you mean to tell me that you MISSED that part? Or are we to believe that that isn't part of the collapse for some reason? Now, add the rest of that collapse timing where the rest of the penthouse top falls to the ground. What is that? Do we add your 6.6 seconds onto that now for a grand total of 13.6 seconds?



So, total collapse DIDN'T occur in 6.6 seconds because you exclude the mechanical penthouse initial collapse from your calculation?

Why did you do that? Is it because it fit your claims better?

because TROOFERS love to LIE

 

[eots]

Why is it that you and your other stooges continually post claims and quotes WITHOUT the sources. Is that part of your game-plan? To quote mine and make up your own stuff so people can't make up their own minds?

Between you and 9/11 inside job, you two never quote what you are talking about. You want a "good debate" about subjects here, but refuse to make it easy to discuss by referring us to videos and past posts that supposedly contain the information.

So, I'll ask you this again. Please post the source to the quote where James Quintiere requested a scientific study of "hypothetical blast scenarios". Can you provide one or not? If not, we can all just assume that your making this crap up. Much like 9/11 inside job and his claim that steel only STARTS to melt at 2500F, yet provides no source for his claim and only gives us a mysterious "steel worker" who told him this.

This is a link to the search I did to get to his pdf paper (direct link can't be posted)

James Quintiere - Yahoo! Search Results

The guy does have some valid questions. But what is more interesting is that truthers like eots really point to him is their guy. Problem is, as far as I can tell he doesn't beleive it was an inside job either. He simply posits a different collapse scenario.

typical for troofers
they LIE

I dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

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.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Bern80]

This is a link to the search I did to get to his pdf paper (direct link can't be posted)

James Quintiere - Yahoo! Search Results

The guy does have some valid questions. But what is more interesting is that truthers like eots really point to him is their guy. Problem is, as far as I can tell he doesn't beleive it was an inside job either. He simply posits a different collapse scenario.

typical for troofers
they LIE

I dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

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.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

You most certainly do. You've only mentioned him in a dozen or so posts in this thread alone. But you have to acknowledge that while you both may agree that the investigation was less than satisfactory, a point I may be willing to concede, you and he diverge opinions when you and the truthers take what he says a make this gigantic flying leap of logic to use what he says as evidence of controlled demolition and inside job. You frankly bastardize his work by holding him up as a means to support your controlled demolition, inside job theory. There is nothing to indicate for a second that he holds the opinion that there was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down. For all you know the reason he is asking for it is because he believes such comparisons would rule OUT that scenario. I am further convinced that if such experiments took place to HIS satisfactions, you would remain unconvinced that a controlled demolition was not possible.

 

[Gamolon]

dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......

I love the word games here. He doesn't "find the controlled demolition theory less likely". He doesn't consider it at ALL. His alternate theory is that the TRUSSES failed due to HEAT.

Quit playing games.

Is that what the truth movement has been reduced to? Word games?

 

[DiveCon]

dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......

I love the word games here. He doesn't "find the controlled demolition theory less likely". He doesn't consider it at ALL. His alternate theory is that the TRUSSES failed due to HEAT.

Quit playing games.

Is that what the truth movement has been reduced to? Word games?

yes, that's all it has ever been

 

[eots]

dont point to him as.. my guy ...I point to him to cofirm the following...if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......

I love the word games here. He doesn't "find the controlled demolition theory less likely". He doesn't consider it at ALL. His alternate theory is that the TRUSSES failed due to HEAT.

Quit playing games.

Is that what the truth movement has been reduced to? Word games?

bullshit he says,,, he think its is most likely floor collapse..and not explosives...then he questions why alternative theory's...that NIST had promised and stated clearly was to include hypothetical blast scenarios ...had never been done

 

[eots]

You most certainly do. You've only mentioned him in a dozen or so posts in this thread alone. But you have to acknowledge that while you both may agree that the investigation was less than satisfactory, a point I may be willing to concede, you and he diverge opinions when you and the truthers take what he says a make this gigantic flying leap of logic to use what he says as evidence of controlled demolition and inside job. You frankly bastardize his work by holding him up as a means to support your controlled demolition, inside job theory.

no I hold him up to support no such temperatures requires to weaken steel where found in the forensics...that information from the government blocked not forthcoming and worked to deter the finding of facts..that no coherent timeline had been done..that computer models have not been calibrated..that the investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios was requested but never done..that the crime scene had been removed in a unprecedented fashion hindering the investigation...that the NIST findings are inconclusive and an independent investigation with subpoena power is required

There is nothing to indicate for a second that he holds the opinion that there was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down. For all you know the reason he is asking for it is because he believes such comparisons would rule OUT that scenario. I am further convinced that if such experiments took place to HIS satisfactions, you would remain unconvinced that a controlled demolition was not possible

well those are nothing more than your imaginings and assumptions aren't they

 

[Bern80]

no I hold him up to support no such temperatures requires to weaken steel where found in the forensics...that information from the government blocked not forthcoming and worked to deter the finding of facts..that no coherent timeline had been done..that computer models have not been calibrated..that the investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios was requested but never done..that the crime scene had been removed in a unprecedented fashion hindering the investigation...that the NIST findings are inconclusive and an independent investigation with subpoena power is required

None of which would come close to proving an inside job or controlled demolition because you still have zero evidence for the many, many other variables that would have to be true for theory to remain plausible.

For starters, Hell for kicks let's assume a controlled demolition did take place. Why would you assume it was done by the government? Why couldn't Al Quaida have been responsible for that as well?

well those are nothing more than your imaginings and assumptions aren't they

Unless you can explain to me what is untrue or inaccurate about any of that, no, they are not.

 

[eots]

no I hold him up to support no such temperatures requires to weaken steel where found in the forensics...that information from the government blocked not forthcoming and worked to deter the finding of facts..that no coherent timeline had been done..that computer models have not been calibrated..that the investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios was requested but never done..that the crime scene had been removed in a unprecedented fashion hindering the investigation...that the NIST findings are inconclusive and an independent investigation with subpoena power is required

None of which would come close to proving an inside job or controlled demolition because you still have zero evidence for the many, many other variables that would have to be true for theory to remain plausible.

do I have to point out to you according to the lead fire investigator at NIST ..ZERO evidence of the heat required to even weaken steel could be found in forensic evidence...the very cornerstone of the collapse theory....

 

[Gamolon]

do I have to point out to you according to the lead fire investigator at NIST ..ZERO evidence of the heat required to even weaken steel could be found in forensic evidence...the very cornerstone of the collapse theory....

Do I have to continually point out to you that you're lying? Here is a quote from his paper.

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.

You're full of crap. He believes, based on the tests and evidence that the trusses failed due to heat.

 

[DiveCon]

do I have to point out to you according to the lead fire investigator at NIST ..ZERO evidence of the heat required to even weaken steel could be found in forensic evidence...the very cornerstone of the collapse theory....

Do I have to continually point out to you that you're lying? Here is a quote from his paper.

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.

You're full of crap. He believes, based on the tests and evidence that the trusses failed due to heat.

and thats because they did
he just doesnt believe that the core columns also had heat failures

there is ZERO evidence if explosive demolition in any of the buildings

 

[eots]

A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings..

Dr. Quintiere Chief of NIST's Fire Science

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Bern80]

do I have to point out to you according to the lead fire investigator at NIST ..ZERO evidence of the heat required to even weaken steel could be found in forensic evidence...the very cornerstone of the collapse theory....

Again you cherry pick your evidence. I also read your last post here. Gamolon has quite clearly quoted what Quintiiere believes happened in his paper. Please quote for us the section of that paper, which is linked here in this thread, where Mr. Qunitieire apparently contradicts his own words.

And again you didn't answer my questions. When are you going to man up and start explaining the many other variables that must also be true for the controlled demolition (here on out CD), inside job theory to remain plausible? First and foremost how were 'they' able to make sure the planes crashed into the building below where the controlled demolition would have had to start?

 

[Gamolon]

A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings..

Dr. Quintiere Chief of NIST's Fire Science

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

What's your point? He STILL thinks that explosives had no part in the towers coming down. He STILL thinks it was the trusses that failed due to heat.

Do you understand what he means by "due to heat"? You keep claiming that temperatures could not have been reached to affect the steel in any way, yet the same guy who you keep using as your point man, is saying that HE BELIEVES that it WASN'T the columns, but the TRUSSES that failed.

You keep asserting that he wants an investigation because he thinks explosives or thermite were used.

Not the case pal. When he says "alternative theories", he means ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL failures. Anyone who reads his paper and gets out of it that he wants an investigation done because he thinks there were explosives used has a friggin screw loose in their head.

Quit trying to mislead people.

 

[Gamolon]

if he finds the controled demolition theory less likely than a collapse theory...(which is what he was qouted as saying) is not he point......

Can you please post a link to the quote that has him saying this please?

 

[eots]

“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.”

Dr. Quintiere

`and then proceeds with test and simulations as requested of him based on temperatures well in excess of anything that was evident at the wtc

 

[Gamolon]

“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.”

Dr. Quintiere

`and then proceeds with test and simulations as requested of him based on temperatures well in excess of anything that was evident at the wtc

I get it now! You are taking is quote COMPLETELY out of context in order to support your view.

So what you are TRYING to imply is that he thinks BOTH scenarios are plausible, but that his theory that the trusses failed due to heat outweighs the demolition/explosives theory.

Did i get that right?

 

[Terral]

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. All of that being said, the 90-degree I-beam cuts that appear throughout the same picture of the collapsed WTC-7 debris pile clearly represent Controlled Demolition Signatures. We are still looking at an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper . . .

. . . transformed into this neat little pile . . .

. . . (look at the adjacent building faces) in 6.6 seconds . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded"]. . . Like This . . .[/ame]

Here is where the rubber meets the road in this WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Case: Demolition Supervisors work for months preparing the demo 'plans' and months setting the charges to bring down a massive structure of this size with this kind of efficiency. There is NO WAY that anybody started a few fires and ran away to watch this skyscraper collapse CD-style. You could dump a million gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) onto WTC-7 and light a match and the building would remain standing if you repeated the process a million times; because hydrocarbon fuels simply do NOT burn hot enough to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.

Watch The Short Video

Now I have admitted the error in my work to everyone here 'and' the "Building Fires Did It" Official Cover Story LIARS can do the same thing . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Gamolon]

. . . (look at the adjacent building faces) in 6.6 seconds . . .

Another "mistake". Not 6.6 seconds. Why are you not including the fact that part of the mechanical penthouse fell INTO the building 7 seconds BEFORE the entire structure collapsed? I showed you the Jowenko video that CLEARLY shows that part.

Is there some reason why you are ignoring this part of the collapse?