NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[ozeco41]

Ah, I stand corrected.

No prob.

Gave me the excuse to put another nail into the coffin of the Szamboti/gerrycan dishonest nonsense.

 

[Mark F]

Of course, I already knew you would have some Gitshy Goo excuse for not wanting to address what's so incredibly obvious. Last time it was that I wasn't "serious". This time it's the "cherry picked" denial of the existence almost 4,000 onsite shear studs per level, plus who knows how many pre-installed shear studs. Multiply that by 47, that works out to be almost 190,000 cherry-picked shear studs. And I didn't even get to the other missing components yet. No fraud, just a minor excusable mistake that any prominent engineer with many years of experience makes all the time.

You still have a severe case of SDD (Serious Deficiency Disorder) Bob but it has been clearly explained to you what the requirements for FRAUD are and why you have not met them. Therefore at this time there is no case to argue. If you wish to make a case to argue you have three choices:

1. Establish a basis for a fraud claim THEN make your technical claims
OR
2. Drop the fraud silliness and just discuss whether or not the technical claims are valid/correct.
OR
2. Drop the whole thing.

Your choice - when you decide to become serious and engage in a proper discussion.

 

[Bob0627]

The procedural errors and debate trickery are strictly redundant because the two main "legs" of the claim have been shown to be fatally flawed.

Ah, it's my "debate trickery" that's "fatally flawed", the 190,000 missing shear studs don't put a dent in NIST's pristine theory, neither does any other missing component or concocted data. What's really important here is Pepper, Gage, Szamboti, Bob and anyone else who disagrees with/questions the official conspiracy theory not those who advance it using OBVIOUS deception and cover-up, such as NIST. When you have no way to account for such gross and clearly OBVIOUS deceptive practices, always resort to attacking the messenger, that's a standard debating technique children use.

 

[Bob0627]

2. Drop the whole thing.

I did, on your denying lap. I'll be dropping much more on your denying lap as this thread evolves so maybe you need to get out the way before the weight on your lap causes you injury.

 

[Fledermaus]

Ah, it's my "debate trickery" that's "fatally flawed", the 190,000 missing shear studs don't put a dent in NIST's pristine theory, neither does any other missing component or concocted data. What's really important here is Pepper, Gage, Szamboti, Bob and anyone else who disagrees with/questions the official conspiracy theory not those who advance it using OBVIOUS deception and cover-up, such as NIST. When you have no way to account for such gross and clearly OBVIOUS deceptive practices, always resort to attacking the messenger, that's a standard debating technique children use.

When will you take your "proof" to the FBI, Attorney General and the MSM?

 

[Mark F]

I did, on your denying lap. I'll be dropping much more on your denying lap as this thread evolves so maybe you need to get out the way before the weight on your lap causes you injury.

Again, since I don't waste my time debating children (I could do that at home) - should you ever decide to be serious,.....

 

[Mark F]

No prob.

Gave me the excuse to put another nail into the coffin of the Szamboti/gerrycan dishonest nonsense.

We must be at a point of more steel than wood by now

 

[ozeco41]

We must be at a point of more steel than wood by now

Could well be. In all this T Sz nonsense over the years his MO has not changed viz:
1) He makes false assumptions which favour what he wants to conclude; THEN
2) He burrows down into some engineering looking details sufficient to fool the gullibles.

You see the effect in this thread which is mainly regurgitated Szamboti (Or gerrycan - a Szamboti clone)

One unproven assumption for this WTC7 stuff is the presumption of "Pristine Building" - the idea that in a fire ravaged building ONLY the girder and beams attached to it were affected by heating/cooling. And the supporting columns remained in its original location to within half an inch or less.

Another is the misundertanding of "walking" - it is not a single stage, single step, single beam activity.

Mmmm...some people have little concept of steel frames in fires.

And unless both of those are supported the claim is not made out.

 

[Bob0627]

View attachment 67166934

Could well be. In all this T Sz nonsense over the years his MO has not changed viz:
1) He makes false assumptions which favour what he wants to conclude; THEN
2) He burrows down into some engineering looking details sufficient to fool the gullibles.

You see the effect in this thread which is mainly regurgitated Szamboti (Or gerrycan - a Szamboti clone)

Always resorting to shooting the messenger without ever addressing the message. Would those "engineering looking details" be those 190,000 missing shear studs, stiffener plates and lateral support beams? Yeah, what's a couple of hundred thousand missing "engineering looking details" going to change about NIST's column 79 theory. Only gullible people are fooled that these mean anything to engineers. They're always just put into drawings for show, they're never really used for anything.

 

[Fledermaus]

Always resorting to shooting the messenger without ever addressing the message. Would those "engineering looking details" be those 190,000 missing shear studs, stiffener plates and lateral support beams? Yeah, what's a couple of hundred thousand missing "engineering looking details" going to change about NIST's column 79 theory. Only gullible people are fooled that these mean anything to engineers. They're always just put into drawings for show, they're never really used for anything.

So, the Attorney General, the FBI and the MSM... When are you contacting them?

You are posting on a relatively obscure chat-board when you can win the hearts and minds of millions with your well-reasoned research.

Fire away.

Lay on MacDuff.

You may fire when ready Gridley.

Get off the pot.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Sure, I'll play. What 'pertinent questions' would a 'reasoned analysis' require?

Really? Do you really have to ask such a stupid question?

 

[Thoreau72]

Again, since I don't waste my time debating children (I could do that at home) - should you ever decide to be serious,.....

You must have 'debated' many children in your life Mark, because your debating style is very juvenile. eace

 

[Fledermaus]

You must have 'debated' many children in your life Mark, because your debating style is very juvenile. eace

It fits when speaking to people who have not progressed to the "argue facts and evidence" stage, AKA truthers.

 

[Bob0627]

NIST'S FRAUD - INVALID MODELING DATASETS

To recap,

Post #276 shows that NIST published contradictory/invalid details about the fires and the thermal expansion of the beams affecting a girder connection to column 79. As the published details show, NIST does not provide valid evidence that column 79 failed due to thermally expanding beams. There is other evidence that NIST refuses to release. However, since NIST denied FOIA requests for the release of such evidence, none of it is available which might lend support to NIST’s claims or contradict them.

Post #361 describes NIST’s presumed general procedure and shows that NIST omitted nearly 4,000 onsite shear studs plus those that were pre-installed by claiming that there were none. This is of course contradicted by the original Frankel drawings as well as NIST itself in NIST’s earlier report. The significance of these shear studs is that these would have caused the length of beam expansion to be much less than NIST claims and thus could not possibly have expanded far enough to dislodge a girder connection to column 79.

Each issue described above, renders NIST’s column 79 theory impossible on its own merit. In this segment, NIST’s FRAUD continues to be exposed with the omission of several other structural components that appear in the original Frankel drawings. Each of these components, when included into NIST’s modeling dataset, would render NIST’s column 79 theory impossible.

The following video describes how the length of the seat plate, originally claimed to be 11” and later corrected to 12” by NIST, would prevent walk off when pushed 5.7” (the expansion length claimed by NIST based on a 600 C temperature). It also describes an additional and longer (14”) seat plate that NIST omitted, as well as a pair of welded stiffener plates that would have prevented lateral movement even if such thermal expansion took place.



The video below is a summary of technical findings that further support the impossibility of NIST’s column 79 failure theory.



The article below also describes the same subject:

‘MaladmiNISTration’

Based on what has been presented so far, it’s clear that column 79 could not possibly have failed as described by the NIST report. But WTC7 did collapse and NIST’s entire report is a worthless concocted fallacy. As such, since NIST’s “investigation” into WTC7 is worthless, a real investigation is still required. And because at best, NIST’s investigation into the collapse of WTC7 is fraught with incompetence or at worse, criminally fraudulent, its investigation into the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 is also highly suspect.

To be continued …

 

[Mark F]

You must have 'debated' many children in your life Mark, because your debating style is very juvenile. eace

Again, why do you bother when nothing but stoopid emanates from your fingers?

 

[Mark F]

Are you saying that Column did not fail prior to the other columns then? What exactly are you claiming here?

 

[Bob0627]

Are you saying that Column (79?) did not fail prior to the other columns then? What exactly are you claiming here?

Is that a serious question? What's your confusion? You've written many posts in this thread and you prompted me to create this thread (thank you) and now you still don't know what I'm claiming? If you need a hint, read the title of the thread. Read the first 2 sentences in the last paragraph of post #389. Get it yet?

 

[Mark F]

Is that a serious question? What's your confusion? You've written many posts in this thread and you prompted me to create this thread (thank you) and now you still don't know what I'm claiming? If you need a hint, read the title of the thread. Read the first 2 sentences in the last paragraph of post #389. Get it yet?

I know what happened. I am trying to figure out what your claim is, or at least if you know what it is from all the Gish Gallop you copy and paste from.

Predictably, rather than answer a very simple question you have decided to evade instead. So one more time, for simple clarity: Did Column 79 fail before the other columns or not? Yes or no?

 

[Bob0627]

I know what happened.

Congratulations. So there's nothing more for you here.

I am trying to figure out what your claim is

If you don't know by now, I can't help you. In any case, what for? You already know everything. And you believe what I post is Gitshy Goo so you won't accept my response anyway.

Predictably, rather than answer a very simple question you have decided to evade instead.

Nope, I answered your question, despite the fact that I found your question incredulous.

So one more time, for simple clarity: Did Column 79 fail before the other columns or not? Yes or no?

Why are you asking me a question you already believe you know the answer to? No one knows exactly what happened, except you of course (at least you think so). There was not any valid investigation into the collapse of WTC7, that's one of the major points of this thread.

 

[Mark F]

Congratulations. So there's nothing more for you here.

If you don't know by now, I can't help you. In any case, what for? You already know everything. And you believe what I post is Gitshy Goo so you won't accept my response anyway.

Nope, I answered your question, despite the fact that I found your question incredulous.

Why are you asking me a question you already believe you know the answer to? No one knows exactly what happened, except you of course (at least you think so). There was not any valid investigation into the collapse of WTC7, that's one of the major points of this thread.

Why are you trying to hard to evade such a simple question. You are the one who keeps pretending he wants to have a discussion on this issue and I am trying to discuss it as requested. To do that I need clarification on one detail. Was Column 79 the first column to collapse, yes or no? Please do not respond with another personal attack and evasion like you always do. Just man up and answer yes or no.

 

[Bob0627]

Why are you trying to hard to evade such a simple question. You are the one who keeps pretending he wants to have a discussion on this issue and I am trying to discuss it as requested. To do that I need clarification on one detail. Was Column 79 the first column to collapse, yes or no? Please do not respond with another personal attack and evasion like you always do. Just man up and answer yes or no.

Last time. What part of NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED (including YOU, despite your delusional claims) don't you understand? Ask again and you'll be ignored.

 

[Mark F]

Last time. What part of NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED (including YOU, despite your delusional claims) don't you understand? Ask again and you'll be ignored.

If "nobody knows exactly what happened" doesn't that mean all this nonsense you have been posting about a PROBABLE COLLPASE SEQUENCE being a FRAUD is so much wasted bandwidth?

 

[Bob0627]

If "nobody knows exactly what happened" doesn't that mean all this nonsense you have been posting about a PROBABLE COLLPASE SEQUENCE being a FRAUD is so much wasted bandwidth?

There's no IF about it, it's a fact that no one knows exactly what happened other than those who were responsible for what happened.

This thread and the points I made in this thread are not nonsense (except to you and those like minded), they are all self explanatory. If you believe it's all nonsense and a "waste of bandwidth" to you no one is forcing you to participate. You're the one who prompted me to create this thread but that does not mean your posts are necessary, wanted or required. Most of them are worthless (to me) and the only useful function they may serve at times is to cause me to clarify various issues. And if and when your posts necessitate that I clarify something, I'll be more happy to do that. But that's strictly based on my judgment, especially in light of the fact that a good deal of what you post is irrelevant juvenile silliness.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

There's no IF about it, it's a fact that no one knows exactly what happened other than those who were responsible for what happened.

I highly doubt Mohammed Atta and crew know exactly how the building failed.

 

[mike2810]

There's no IF about it, it's a fact that no one knows exactly what happened other than those who were responsible for what happened.

/QUOTE]

Actually Bob, depending how detailed you want to get on the collapse, I can agree that no one knows for sure what happened. That is what bolt poped first, what beam collapsed second, etc. Even those responsible could not tell you that.

For those who do not accept the broad explanations of hijacked planes/crash/fire/collapse, it is up to them to explain whatever explanation they accept.