Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report!

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report!

For the first time in history, normal office fires have created a total progressive collapse if the report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can be believed, said Richard Gage, AIA. Office fires can not melt steel, Gage claims, and NIST has neither explained the mystery of molten iron at the World Trade Center site nor considered other evidence that also suggests the use of thermate incendiary charges to cut the steel framework of 47-story Building 7.
NIST's vaguely worded presentation was "absurd on its face," contended Kevin Ryan, and differed completely from the story they had previously told Popular Mechanics. Though NIST claimed to hold scientific attitudes about alternative theories, they never responded to multiple invitations to discuss them, Ryan complained. NIST's disregard for chemical evidence of explosive nanothermate must be considered in the light of Ryan's findings that NIST has been studying these materials for almost ten years, and several of NIST's WTC investigators are experts in them
www.ae911truth.org...
So what they are saying is NIST is full of it.
It really amaze me how the 911 commission left out all the eye witness reports of Firemen and police officers and first responders who saw and heard explosion in all three buildings.
Why where all their testimony’s left out of the 911 commission?
By leaving out their testimony in the 911 commission reports, I believe the Government was hiding something.
Then NIST will not look in to doing testing to see if explosives where use to bring the WTC down.
NIST claim’s there were no eyewitness that saw or heard explosions.
We now know NIST is lying and lying for the Government.
So, with these two known facts I am convinced explosions were planted in the WTC.
After seen photos of some of the remaining core columns at the basement of the WTC, it is apparent that some type of cutter charge was used to shift the building and photos do not lie.
With the 911 commission reports and the NIST report of how the WTC fell it is very clear that they are covering up explosions. Just too many lies.
If it comes out that explosion where used then the Government will have to explain to the American people how 19 highjackers where experts in building demolition as well as experts in piloting air planes.
Which doesn’t make sense to me.
If it was not the highjackers who blew up the WTC then who did?
www.ae911truth.org...



[edit on 9/5/2008 by cashlink]




posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Richard Gage the genius has spoken!!! Pahleeeze... go watch the debate where NYC Tour Guide Mark Roberts destroyed him.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


I think I'd listen to an architect first before consulting a tour bus driving on this matter.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Richard Gage the genius has spoken!!! Pahleeeze... go watch the debate where NYC Tour Guide Mark Roberts destroyed him.


You have a link to this debate?

Ya know just so we can see/read this 'debate of destruction'?

Wouldn't want your bias to sway our own interpretations of 'destruction'



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TaZCoN

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Richard Gage the genius has spoken!!! Pahleeeze... go watch the debate where NYC Tour Guide Mark Roberts destroyed him.


You have a link to this debate?

Ya know just so we can see/read this 'debate of destruction'?

Wouldn't want your bias to sway our own interpretations of 'destruction'




He might be referring to this
www.truthring.org...

And I don't think Mark Roberts did that great. He has done well in the past, here I didn't find most of what he was trying to say very credible.

Key, to watch for is in the Second Link when the host ask about the Second Hand Nature of the research and about Equal Access, watch Mark change the subject, he brushes it aside firstly by saying that how after 8 years could their be equal access, to which the host, says it would have been nice from the start for both sides to have Equal Access, Mark then talks about his video that is online, then Mark starts talking about the Amount of Explosives needed to pulverize Concrete, even though he believes the natural building collapse did it!!

Mark Changed the Subject at that point, because it was a valid question. The Host was asking about Equal Access to Parties that Disagree, The Steel, the Concrete etc.
Mark then does some sleight of hand and changes the subject.









[edit on 6-9-2008 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Right! and the Government has all the answers lol
I am going to get my spoon and sit in front of my TV TY
I don’t believe he debunk Gage but, that is my opinion.
You are entitle to you own opinion.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam
I think I'd listen to an architect first before consulting a tour bus driving on this matter.


I would too. Unless that architect is Richard Gage. Please tell me why Gage makes no reference to this debate on his website.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
And I don't think Mark Roberts did that great. He has done well in the past, here I didn't find most of what he was trying to say very credible.




Talisman... Just some info that you may find interesting regarding the debate:


The host was John Clifton, an amiable guy. I had thought he was merely sympathetic to truther claims, but he's actually a a hardcore truther. He doesn't seem to be aware of much of the evidence on the...er...evidence-based side. I kept inviting him to check out my website. He didn't seem to go out of his way to show bias against me, though. I talked with him quite a bit before and after the taping but don't think I made a dent. He's a believer in many conspiracy theories, with the overriding belief that the government controls so much information that it's impossible to know what's true. Well, the government doesn't control the physical laws of the universe, which are what falsify Richard Gage's claims.

It was originally to be one show, about the three WTC skyscraper collapses, with Gage choosing the topics. Most of my preparation was about the Twin Towers, since that's what Gage spends most of his time on and makes his most extreme claims about.

To give the show some structure and to insure equal time, last week I proposed this format:

1) Mr. Gage would choose his five best pieces of evidence in favor of controlled demolition. I would not know the topics in advance.

2) Each topic would receive a two-minute summary of evidence by the first presenter, then a two-minute rebuttal, then a 15-second response by the first presenter.

3) We would alternate being the first to present on a topic, to avoid the same person doing a rebuttal each time (assuming that I'd learn the topics when the show started). Considering overruns and topic introductions by John, that format should have taken about 24 minutes, leaving about 3 minutes for guest introductions and other topics.

That proposal was rejected.
- Mark Roberts

Cont:


Before we took our seats, I was informed by John Cifton that the subject was going to be restricted to WTC 7. I was not pleased by this, since I had prepared to discuss all WTC topics and had done a Hardfire show with Ron and Arthur Scheuerman about WTC 7 in February...for which we could find no prominent truther opponent. I would rather have covered new ground. However, since my policy is that I'll debate any prominent non-insane truther on their own turf, I went along with this change of plans.
- Mark Roberts


I could easily do a 10-hour solo presentation on all Gage gets wrong, with no preparation. Condensing everything to a few minutes is difficult.
- Mark Roberts


It was amusing hearing Gage being coached about WTC 7 specifics before the show. He didn't know we could hear him and at that point he couldn't hear us. Let's just say that he was...confused about important points with only two minutes to go.
-Mark Roberts


John began the show with a statement that consisted of two quotes by Ron Paul, one of which was misleading and irrelevant (the 9/11 Commission didn't discuss the collapse of WTC 7), and the other of which was wrong and irrelevant (Bin Ladens were flown out of the US after 9/11 before airspace was open to others). We were not asked to comment on those quotes. Because I didn't want to immediately embarrass a host who was already biased against me, I held my tongue. That was not easy to do.
- Mark Roberts


The sheer volume of Gage's wrongness can be mind-numbing: in his online Powerpoint presentation I cataloged 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies. There were lots of important points I missed during the shows, but that's always the case and I don't kick myself too much about it. People will be directed to my website, where I'll have a page dedicated to these shows and links for investigating each claim.
- Mark Roberts

I would like to point to a letter Mark Roberts sent to Richard Gage (and others)

here



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


So he found some faults big deal!
It still doesn’t make the Government right dose it now.
You are looking to poke holes in everybody that dose not agree with you.
NIST report is full of holes, so is the 911-commission report, which I will add is incomplete.
My opinion is I believe Gage did a good job showing something else happened.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
So he found some faults big deal!
It still doesn’t make the Government right dose it now.

This is just rationalisation. Gage gets so many things wrong that even a guy like me can show them. He simply has not read the NIST report thoroughly and makes many many false statements.

You should read Mark Roberts letter and start a thread regarding what you believe is the thing he got most wrong.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yo Throat Yo,

If you wanna believe in Santa Clause, that's your problem. Please don't push the Santa hypothesis on me. Santa Clause is an invention created by men and steel buildings just don't come crumbling down because of fire.

I guess you have never been deceived before on a LARGE scale. I have. And let me tell you something about believing in a system that you thought was pure and then find out it's totally corrupt. You look for answers, and when one answer is is given, two more questions pop up.

I can't believe in lies which will be the reason why I will die before my time, but I'd rather die searching for truth than die wrapped inside a lie.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
My opinion is I believe Gage did a good job showing something else happened.


You are entitled to your opinion. Can you please point out what facts Gage got right?

Thank you

-TY-



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JimBeam
 


Jim... my friend... Oh, how delicious only with a splash of water on the rocks. (maybe a twist of lime)

That being said, please point out what Mark Roberts got wrong... and what Gage got right.

Thank you.

-TY-



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I got through 15 minutes before I shut it off.

Gage is a boring person. Roberts, I put into the same category as the Popular Mechanic morons. I really didn't get a sense that Roberts was bringing anything new into the equation. Gage is so dull that I just had to stop the video.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JimBeam
 


Ok.. in the 15 minutes.

What did Gage get right and Roberts get wrong.

Thank you

-TY-



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam
steel buildings just don't come crumbling down because of fire.


If this is the case, can I ask you why the steel is fireproofed?



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by JimBeam
 


Ok.. in the 15 minutes.

What did Gage get right and Roberts get wrong.

Thank you

-TY-


Gage + Roberts = BORING "debate".

They were debating the same BS that I've seen OVER and OVER again.

BORING!!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The NIST report is so much like yogurt, no wonder it gets stuck in the craw. Me, I wont even get close enough to nibble on the story and get a mouth full to subsequently try to swallow. Except the big difference is the story does not smell anything like yogurt.

Thermal expansion. Indeed.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam


Gage + Roberts = BORING "debate".

They were debating the same BS that I've seen OVER and OVER again.

BORING!!!!


In other words, you can't answer me. Thanks for playing.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Loops and hoops, and references here and over there....


....not one has actually offered without the typical smoke and mirrors of factual data that concludes NIST is competent anymore for the suggesting that any typical steel framed building across the planet is suceptiable to fire and failure on a scale that all Common Civil Engineering is completely and absolutley wrong and must be revamped to protect the millions of individuals that occupy buildings that NIST has now suggested that will fail due to normal office fires.

Do any of the na-sayers mainstreamers get that? Do you now walk into any steel framed building and not "recognize" that any fire will cause a complete failure, based off the 'testimony" of NIST report of WTC 7!!!!

Yet no single emergency implementation plan has been inacted to beef-up bring to code and make sure these steel framed buildings are no longer such engineering nightmares....

You know Occums razor hacks this theory to pieces.......





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join