scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:25 pm Post subject: 9/11 NIST-Gage WTC7 Dead Parrot Sketch |
 |
|
Richard Gage and NIST discussing WTC7 and parallels with Monty Python's "Dead Parrot Sketch"
| Quote: |
Mr. Gage: 'Ello, Miss.
NIST: Do you mean "NIST"?
Mr. Gage: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to register a complaint!
NIST: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gage: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this report about WTC7, the third tower to fall on 9/11 that took you 7 years to write and then hid under a Rhinoceros in the New York Zoo.
NIST: Oh yes, the, uh, the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of WTC7. Beautiful cover color: Norwegian Blue. So er... What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gage: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's wrong, that's what's wrong with it!
NIST: No, no, no. We've experts. It can't be wrong.
Mr. Gage: Look, matey, I know my Newtonian Physics. I studied it in Kindergarten and I can tell you that it is wrong. Steel framed skyscrapers do not fall down like a pack of cards just because of a few office fires.
NIST: Yeah, steel-framed on the outside but inside it was made of jelly.
Mr. Gage: Jelly? The building was especially re-enforced with more steel. It was described as a building within a building. It held the good-damn Mayor's emergency bunker!
NIST: Jelly, yeah, you know. After all the shaking it received from the Twin Tower collapse. You know, it turned the steel to mush. And the gouge. The terrible ripping from them towers falling on to it on 9/11.
Mr. Gage: The Gouge? And Jelly? So have you any evidence of this perhaps? Some photos of this gouge? A scientific study and means of justifying your assertions? It's not like this is important after all? What with all that physical evidence of Enron fraud collected within the building or the back up tapes of the DoD's accounts where they can't find 2.2 trillion dollars? Let alone the implications of skyscraper safety in general? You know, perhaps we ought to evacuate the whole of New York if all the skyscrapers could turn to jelly and collapse in an office fire?
NIST: We have science. We have a computer model.
Mr. Gage: Can I see this computer model?
NIST: Look there!
(Points to video of model of WTC7 collapsing)
Mr. Gage: That's just an animation. And not a very good one. It looks nothing like the video of the actual building falling at freefall at 5.20pm on 9/11.
NIST: The computer says it was made of jelly.
Mr. Gage: And the gouge?
NIST: That's what we heard. Big nasty thing it was.
Mr. Gage: But no photo?
NIST: Well, it was 9/11. We had better things to do rather than sit around and take photos, you know.
Mr. Gage: So can we have the computer model?
NIST: No.
Mr. Gage: Why not?
NIST: Because it will “jeopardize pubic safety”.
Mr. Gage: Jeopardize pubic safety! Jeopardize pubic safety? How can a computer program on the collapse of a building “jeopardize pubic safety”? That makes no sense whatsoever unless that it is was full of viruses or it is the programatic inception of Skynet and the overthrow of humanity?
NIST: I'm going to get technical, since you obviously don't understand the theory of relativity here, so I'll explain. After the wobbling, the gouge, there was the heat of the fire. It got so hot that a beam expanded and pushed column 79 fell off its mounting and everything all caved in. See perfectly logical!
Mr. Gage: Logical?
NIST: Yeah! Column 79 is what done it.
Mr. Gage: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. You've spent seven years making a computer model and writing a report that explained the square root of diddly squat and now you say it was just a failure in a single column. Aren't all these columns bolted together? We're not talking about a whole bunch of Jenga?
NIST: Well, the wobbling probably knocked all the bolts out. Probably not even put in the first place. If you're so smart what do you think happened?
Mr. Gage: It was blown up. By controlled demolition.
NIST: Couldn't have been.
Mr. Gage: Why not?
NIST: Nobody heard an explosion. There would have been lots of noise. So impossible. So it couldn't have been explosives.
Mr Gage: There was plenty of reports of explosions, recorded on video, firemen reporting the building was coming down, there is even reports of a countdown. People were trapped in WTC7 because of explosions before the twin towers crashed down! Even the builder of tower, you know, Lucky Larry, the guy that bought the whole lease of the World Trade Center two months before the disaster for a couple of million and then received billions of dollars of insurance money, said the building was “pulled”.
NIST: (tutting) “Pulled” the fireman... out...
Mr Gage: Did you ever check to see whether there was explosives used?
NIST: Well, no. Since it couldn't have been an explosion we didn't test for explosives!
Mr. Gage: Despite the freefall? Despite the molten metal? Despite the reports of exotic nanothermite explosives found in the dust?
NIST: Nanothermite? What's that?
Mr Gage: You should bleeding well know. NIST are the experts on the matter!
NIST: It wasn't freefall. Couldn't have been freefall... Dr Sunder says so.
Mr. Gage: Of course it was freefall. We have the video. It's as easy as pie to calculate. A school teacher showed you how it is done. It fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds. Using Netwon's half-acceleration times time-squared formula, that's 100 foot of space where every steel column, not just number 79, must have disappeared to allow the building to fall with no resistance! Did Godzilla just pick up the building raise it a hundred feet and drop it?
NIST: A school teacher? He's not an engineer like us! What credibility is that?
Mr. Gage: Freefall is admitted in your ruddy report! Of course not in the first draft but it is in the final report. And what does it say to explain it? Nothing.
NIST: It was a unique event. A one in a million chance of it happening. Coincidences do happen, you know.
Mr Gage: Indeed. If it really was one in a million, then how come the TV channels reported the building collapse even before it happened? The BBC's Jane Standley had the building behind her when she was reporting its collapse and then just as it did collapse, at freefall, the live TV cut out. That's what I call coincidence.
NIST: (pause) Well.
(pause)
Mr. Gage: So either there was pre-planned controlled demolition, which can't be organised in a day, and obviously designed to destroy the building and all that incriminating evidence connecting certain Texan politicians to Enron and Worldcom scandals or all skyscrapers are unsafe and we need to evacuate New York.
NIST: Hmm. Shall we try another investigation?
Mr. Gage: Who by? NIST again?
(pause)
NIST: (quietly) Erm, how about I get you on TV?
Mr. Gage: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure. Prime time?
NIST: CSPAN 6am.
Mr. Gage: Ok.
NIST: And are you going to make us look bad?
Mr. Gage: Well, I never really want to talk science. I really want to sing. Sing and be a Lumberjack. Floating down the mighty rivers of British Columbia! With my best girl by my side!... |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
