please demonstate to us how 15.9 mm of a36 steel "corrodes" in 8 days due to fires from normal office building materials.
- Status
please demonstate to us how 15.9 mm of a36 steel "corrodes" in 8 days due to fires from normal office building materials.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Please don't take this as an insult, but,,,,given that they didn't know it was going to fall, I would have to agree with you,,,that it was a dumb question.
Explicit in my question was ... well you can read it...
I heard them advising folks to move back and I heard in the video them say get back and words of warning... so if they didn't know then I wonder why they said that. So, if they did say that do you think they were far enough back... but, given you just said what you said you'll probably say.. do you have a link... hehehehe so I'll go get one after dinner and edit this post...
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
No, actually there was shit falling off the buildings.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Please don't take this as an insult, but,,,,given that they didn't know it was going to fall, I would have to agree with you,,,that it was a dumb question.
Explicit in my question was ... well you can read it...
So, if they did say that do you think they were far enough back... but, given you just said what you said you'll probably say.. do you have a link... hehehehe so I'll go get one after dinner and edit this post...
from the nist, it doesnt say nearly free-fall.......it says "at ravitational acceleration:
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s."
and remember what sunder says of free-fall:
"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------
Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17685
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Now, you have to admit this bit is pretty good...
From Event's link,
" ... A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: ?[W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didn?t look for evidence of explosives?? Newman replied: ?Right, because there was no evidence of that.? ?But,? asked the reporter ?how can you know there?s no evidence if you don?t look for it first?? Newman replied: ?If you?re looking for something that isn?t there, you?re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers? money." ..."
I didn't realize there were so many changes from some interim report and the final one. Of course that is written off cuz it was an interim report... but gee, if an entire theory changes that is a major change.
I wonder what happened to that Jennings guy... ?
From Event's link,
" ... A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: ?[W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didn?t look for evidence of explosives?? Newman replied: ?Right, because there was no evidence of that.? ?But,? asked the reporter ?how can you know there?s no evidence if you don?t look for it first?? Newman replied: ?If you?re looking for something that isn?t there, you?re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers? money." ..."
I didn't realize there were so many changes from some interim report and the final one. Of course that is written off cuz it was an interim report... but gee, if an entire theory changes that is a major change.
I wonder what happened to that Jennings guy... ?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Ozoned
No, actually there was shit falling off the buildings.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Please don't take this as an insult, but,,,,given that they didn't know it was going to fall, I would have to agree with you,,,that it was a dumb question.
Explicit in my question was ... well you can read it...
So, if they did say that do you think they were far enough back... but, given you just said what you said you'll probably say.. do you have a link... hehehehe so I'll go get one after dinner and edit this post...
My question was inarticulate since it did not include the bit that the 'advising' folks included the statement that the building was going to fall. Do you think they were far enough away from the building IF they advised folks to move back and get back because the building was going to fall? I know I saw pictures of windows falling out on the East face and folks stood across the street approx 350ft. [my estimate.. could be closer]
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Sheesh. It's starting to look like I am the only one not in on the conspiracy.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Ozoned
No, actually there was shit falling off the buildings.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Please don't take this as an insult, but,,,,given that they didn't know it was going to fall, I would have to agree with you,,,that it was a dumb question.
Explicit in my question was ... well you can read it...
So, if they did say that do you think they were far enough back... but, given you just said what you said you'll probably say.. do you have a link... hehehehe so I'll go get one after dinner and edit this post...
My question was inarticulate since it did not include the bit that the 'advising' folks included the statement that the building was going to fall. Do you think they were far enough away from the building IF they advised folks to move back and get back because the building was going to fall? I know I saw pictures of windows falling out on the East face and folks stood across the street approx 350ft. [my estimate.. could be closer]
I have a good life. If there is an entity out there that could pull off what you truthers believe, I AM NOT GOING TO FUCK WITH THEM! Good night to you LunarRay.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Sheesh. It's starting to look like I am the only one not in on the conspiracy.
I have a good life. If there is an entity out there that could pull off what you truthers believe, I AM NOT GOING TO FUCK WITH THEM! Good night to you LunarRay.
Good Grief.. I was only asking a question. It seemed they were really in no big hurry.
If I were to join a Truther movement I'd start with the goings on with Able Danger.
Starting with the Senate Judiciary hearing of September 21, 2005.
As you might know or guess, testimony before Congress that is perjury is punishable to the same extent as perjury under oath before Congress..
But I'm not a Truther unless a Truther is only concerned atm with WTC 7 or IF they can be to any extent at odds with some element of 9/11 without bringing it up as a government conspiracy.
I should point out that no Fire Fighter, Police officer of NYPD or PA or any other was up to 'snuff' at that time with all their friends - brothers - dead... I personally know the coming on duty folks took over and had no idea what was going on... my issue was going to the coodination failure at the site... I was told by my cousin that no one knew anything nor what to do or where to go... or for that matter who was in charge.. They had 'Official' folks searching rubble for documents from buildings and evidence... and multi jurisdictional issues going on as well... it was a cluster f...!
In a fire issue the Fire folks out rank... but not there!
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Sheesh. It's starting to look like I am the only one not in on the conspiracy.
I have a good life. If there is an entity out there that could pull off what you truthers believe, I AM NOT GOING TO FUCK WITH THEM! Good night to you LunarRay.
Good Grief.. I was only asking a question. It seemed they were really in no big hurry.
If I were to join a Truther movement I'd start with the goings on with Able Danger.
Starting with the Senate Judiciary hearing of September 21, 2005.
As you might know or guess, testimony before Congress that is perjury is punishable to the same extent as perjury under oath before Congress..
But I'm not a Truther unless a Truther is only concerned atm with WTC 7 or IF they can be to any extent at odds with some element of 9/11 without bringing it up as a government conspiracy.
I should point out that no Fire Fighter, Police officer of NYPD or PA or any other was up to 'snuff' at that time with all their friends - brothers - dead... I personally know the coming on duty folks took over and had no idea what was going on... my issue was going to the coodination failure at the site... I was told by my cousin that no one knew anything nor what to do or where to go... or for that matter who was in charge.. They had 'Official' folks searching rubble for documents from buildings and evidence... and multi jurisdictional issues going on as well... it was a cluster f...!
In a fire issue the Fire folks out rank... but not there!
I know some people that had their shit together. (see my sig)
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
You are right, I don't, and rather I started the thread by posting the facts which prove my point in the OP.
I agree, and hope you will take your own advice a reason to address the facts I presented in my OP, or at least just come to terms with your inability to do so rather than continuing to lash out at me.
Sure enough, he fell back on his credentials, apparently incapable of demonstrating any comprehension of the physics involved, mathematically or otherwise. Hence, I had no reason to present the math.
No one can fathom the impossible, and I've no intrest in pretending to.
I point out the fact that is an obviously energy deficit in the official story when compared to the observable event, leaving force(s) involved in the fall of WTC7 yet to be explained. I also point to evidence of thermitic material and thermitic reactions which suggest nano-thermite could have played some part in bringing the building down. In response you conflate the two to dismiss me as having made a claim I never did.
While you are apparently persuaded by such vacant appeals to authority, I prefer to judge claims on their own merits rather than by the credentials of those making them. That said, how many expects can you show back the official story, and how many disputing it would it take for you to reconsider your position? Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth is at 946 credentialed members at the moment, and their numbers seem to be growing quicker all the time. Would you be willing to rethink your stance when they hit 1000, or what exactly is the magic number, or are you just insistent on defending the official story regardless and continuing to ridicule me for doing otherwise?
Rather, I responded to your examples pointing out the obvious flaw in them, which keep ignoring. Again; in both cases you've got a force beyond that of gravity acting on the system. Are you incapable of coming to terms with this fact?
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
For future references, watch this video to see what people actually look like when somebody goes "off script". around 40 sec
Heene boy spills the beans.
LOL
Thanks for that link. I'm going to go find one of these guys near me and kick him in the balls.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Yeah, I'm still not sure why this joker keeps mentioning these 900 or so engineers agreeing with him when those are simply ~ 900 engineers petitioning for more investigation into WTC7, and petitioning the U.S. gov't no less to make sure an independent investigation happens; which is odd, since if you believe the U.S. gov't brought down the towers and miraculously concealed it, why the hell would you think they wouldn't just conduct a mock "independent" investigation? lmao @ that irony, only Truthers.
Oh, and are there any sources for these ~ 900 engineers saying that WTC7 violated the laws of physics, so much so that even dyslexic high school physics drop-outs can understand it? Nope. :laugh:
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Btw, I still get a kick out of his math. Why can't significantly heavier mass result in acceleration near the speed of gravity on earth just because there is some mass that provides resistive force on the way down? Apparently it is not possible that the resistive force is negligible despite zero calculations by the OP of the actual mass providing resistive force. So how is F = m * a violated in this scenario? Again we see no explanation. So far we have obfuscation and wimp-outs on simple 2D models we know the OP couldn't do if his life depended on it. It would be pretty simple, too, to find basically any physics professor in whatever backwards state the OP lives in and simply ask him to hold his hand and explain why near free-fall acceleration is possible in WTC&7 given damage to crucial supports near the middle of the buildings and the minimal mass obstructing the fall.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
You realize that Richard Gage, their iconic leader or whatever, is a guy who has never been involved in designing, building, or understanding a structure as tall or complicated as the WTC? While often qualified on their subjects, AEtruth lacks any significant number of qualified structural engineers, demolitions persons, or people of that nature.
On top of that, you hold up their membership as some indication that they might be right. Well, the American Society of Civil Engineers has 141,000 members, runs several peer-reviewed journals and has issued and published numerous articles examining the collapse. Not a single piece put forth by the ASCE or published in any of its journals suggest that there is any legitimacy to these conspiracy theories. On top of that, no members of the ASCE have supported anything other than the plane collapse theory.
There isn't a single article in a peer-reviewed journal (ASCE or not) that supports your claims, or any of the other claims made by the conspiracy theorists. There's a good reason for that and it's not that every journal in the world has been co-opted into the Big Bad Government Conspiracy.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
There is something about being a New Yorker that never left my blood after all these years away... Cop or Fire or any responder, really... when you're family it is a very large one indeed!
Bravery is defined by the soul. Hero is defined by bravery. And sadness is defined by a hand reaching out to help nevermore to be seen. The folks who left us on that day define imortality... they live with us always!!!
I remember the gowing up and the laughing not the misery of that day...
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
That is one type of reaction, but far from the only. That is also a good example of how pitiful our media is, the kid says they were putting on a show yet Blitzer just goes on obliviously, asking obviously pre-scripted questions rather than doing anything which one could rightly call journalism.
Anyway, you have yet to even attempt to provide a better explanation for her behavior. I'll quote my first post on the subject so everyone can familiarise themselves with what is being referred to here:
So, yeah, I'm curious to hear other opinions of what seems to have been going on with all of that.
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I don't give a shit who he is, or if anyone else was calling out the physical impossibility of the official story at all. You and your fellow falsers keep claiming some vast expert consensus while failing to show any notable list of credentialed people have even seriously reviewed WTC7's fall, let alone sign on to the official story. So, I confront your mythical claims with the fact that a group of nearly 1000 architects and engineers have come out against the official conspiracy theory you so zealously cling to.
There isn't a single such article which attempts to explain WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, and there isn't going to be until people come to terms with the fact that some yet to be identified force(s) had to be involved.
Not that I ever made any claims of any grand government conspiracy, but I suppose a falser like yourself can't help but misrepresent my position to avoid addressing the facts.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Not sure I fully understand your comment but I figured out the problem...
You can't see the helium balloons that held up the building fascia when all at once the strings attached broke and down it came... All this while we've been looking for structural resistance to gravity within...
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I don't believe them high rise structural engineers... I mentioned the structural engineer who built the tower said it could take more than one 707 hit and still stand, provided the link of his statements and was fed back as rebuttal the NIST report stating no such design criteria was incorporated... So, they are not credible in my book. I hear Demolition People who demo sky scraper type buildings state in video interviews that it was a controlled demolition and was rebutted with NIST's report. I mentioned that molten metal flowed for weeks and again I'm faced with a NIST engineer state in a Q&A that no such comments were made... They are all fabricating stories so now you use them to rebut the A&E group... bad choice in my opinion... NIST has declared them incredible!.
Are you saying that 141,000 ASCE engineers were wrong when they didn't argue about the NIST Interim report that denied 'Free Fall' of some 2.4 seconds? I think I'd ask if you know if the 141,000 have supported the the NIST version of WTC 7 openly or is their silence an indicator of assent.... or could it also be denial?
What evidence is there to review other than the videos? There is not math regarding the total collapse sequence of any of the buildings that fell so what is there to review there. From my post above...
" ... A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying:
?[W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didn?t look for evidence of explosives?? Newman replied: ?Right, because there was no evidence of that.? ?But,? asked the reporter ?how can you know there?s no evidence if you don?t look for it first?? Newman replied: ?If you?re looking for something that isn?t there, you?re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers? money." ..."
So, why publish an article on anomalies that everyone knows don't exist? NIST said?
I just have to add... A high school physics prof presented evidence of Free Fall to NIST and was met with incomprehensible answers. But, he's not a real scientist being only a Truther. It sorta seems that credibility only lives on the side supported... how else can there be only one view... anyhow we know NIST is right cuz their reporting was reviewed by the Presidents Commerce people and the National Security Advisor among other Scientists... it has to be.
On a brighter note, anyone know in what publication NIST's peer reviewed analysis was published? I can't seem to find any details on the Tower collapse after their statement on what initiated it. That was part of their mandate. And If you know was the collapse of WTC 7 included as well. I'm looking for the math and details until it was totally collapsed...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter