My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

reply to post by thedman


What are you, a "four laner"?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Seriously? You're saying that because a small wooden house requires "rigid members", therefore WTC 7 must have even more of them? I'm assuming that you mean diagonal braces as shown in your picture when you use the term rigid member.

And so the pedants and the obfuscaters march on....

You know exactly what I mean. Who are you people?




The rigid members are horizontal and vertical RSJs and the brace is the diagonal member.

When a column and a joist are bolted or welded together it is intended that they be rigid. Due to the natural inclination of the steel to move when a load is applied, a brace is used to maintain rigidity. A rigid member is an element designed to be rigid and a combination of a rigid members make a rigid frame. Rigid members are very strong and it is these elements that demolition experts pre-cut or apply cutting charges to bring down buildings. This comment is not comprehensive nor is it meant to be instructive.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
A rigid member is an element designed to be rigid and a combination of a rigid members make a rigid frame. Rigid members are very strong ...

And why do you say that the Nist model lacks rigid members by this definition? I see no evidence for this claim.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeathThis comment is not comprehensive nor is it meant to be instructive.

Is this some kind of disclaimer? That won't prevent anybody from asking questions.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
In your planet, no comment is worth anything unless one is a published and I presume you mean in a peer reviewed journal.

That is is it. No more discourse, no more inquiry by the citizen, no more activism unless you are an expert in the specific field in which one is engaged in a debate as far as you are concerned.

You have shut the door and declared an arbitrary dogma.

By any definition you are a fanatic or are you one of those Pentagon internet propaganda monkeys?

Its just that every single time a truther comes with an argument, it turns out to be wrong, baseless or some other fallacy. Its true, I care very little what theory truthers come with this time. Its all junk.

But sure, prove that WTC7 was build with cross braces, and prove that NIST neglected to incorporate those in their model. Or that NIST neglected to model rigid members as you call it. We both know that all you have is speculation and baseless assertion. Else we would not be talking about it on this forum.

reply to post by -PLB-

But sure, prove that WTC7 was build with cross braces,

There you go again playing word games. Wasn't I that said that the NIST model had no cross bracing? I want you keep that in mind.

Secondly there are two conventional ways you can pull down a building the way building 7 went down; with cutting charges or if you build it with no rigid frames.

So if I go to the trouble of posting drawings of building 7 with rigid frames, will you agree that the NIST model was unacceptable?

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

So if I go to the trouble of posting drawings of building 7 with rigid frames, will you accept that the NIST model was unacceptable?

assuming they come from a reliable source, that doesn't sound unreasonable...

...once you show that the nist model did not have "rigid frames".

Get right on it we'll be right here.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


I wasn't addressing you, however, if you would like proof of the presence of rigid frames you merely have to ask me.

The NIST computer model does not have rigid frames, it is also missing the skin. Had they been present in the computational progamme, the building would not have collapsed in the way the model did.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

The NIST computer model does not have rigid frames, it is also missing the skin.

I would like to know what you base this claim upon. How do we know that you are correct?

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

I wasn't not addressing you,

This message board has a personal message feature if you want to have private conversations

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

I wasn't not addressing you,

This message board has a personal message feature if you want to have private conversations

You have a need to instruct, don't you?

How about we agree to differ and you move on?




The crime;



The horror;

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


How about some evidence that the NIST computer model is substantially defective. You've claimed that it was missing structural elements that were present in the real building. If that's true, I want to know all about it.

Please share this knowledge with us all. That is all I ask.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


You show a GIF clip of WTC 7 collapsing.....then a still frame of one of the Twin Towers??

WoW!!

Way to be disingenuous........ .......

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
There you go again playing word games. Wasn't I that said that the NIST model had no cross bracing? I want you keep that in mind.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems to me I write in simple to understand English, but English is not my mother language, so things may have been gone in translation.

So to rephrase, you claim that WTC7 either had cross braces or rigid members, and NIST neglected to model those. My question is: prove this assertion, as currently, it is completely baseless. You can as well claim WTC7 was taken down by unicorns as it has as much merit.

Secondly there are two conventional ways you can pull down a building the way building 7 went down; with cutting charges or if you build it with no rigid frames.

And this assertion is based on what exactly? Do you have anything else than baseless assertions? Since you seem to be a truther, I think I know the answer.

So if I go to the trouble of posting drawings of building 7 with rigid frames, will you agree that the NIST model was unacceptable?

You forgot a very small detail. Which is showing that your assertion has any basis in reality.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

You show a GIF clip of WTC 7 collapsing.....then a still frame of one of the Twin Towers??

WoW!!

Way to be disingenuous........

.......

How is it dangerous? Dangerous to whom? Perhaps you mean dangerous for the traitors and criminals that killed so many and some ordinary Jack like me knows it. Plenty of people know.

duplicate

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


The problem is, (and where you are disingenuous, not dangerous), that the "crime" is unrelated to the "horror". They are separate events, while you make them seem to be the same. Although most people on this forum will know this. Still, many people don't seem to know basic facts (for example that the internal collapse of WTC 7 started about 7 seconds before global collapse) so be careful with posting these kind of deceitful posts.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by Juanxlink

 

Yeah! I noticed they talk in circles and they never miss an opportunity to exasperate. If they are not Pentagon internet propaganda monkeys, then they are tragic.

edit on 12-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

Are you ever going to get around to posting some evidence that NIST's WTC7 model was missing some important elements that were present in the real building?

Didnt' take you long to start tossing around "paid shill" accusations. This only makes you look silly, if not crazy.