It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 26
46
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by thedman
Here is Chief Callan (forgot to append to earlier post)



FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower."

Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30."


Sorry my friend ,but this off-site content says nothing about a fire. If anything it proves fire was not the culprit. but I could be wrong.


Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.

But in order for you to learn something, I'd read up on what "creep" means and how it applies to what happened in the WTCs. FYI: NIST does mention this quite a few times. But then, you should have known that by now if you'd read any of it.




Please paste for me where it shows the damage is from fire?

The read up on what firefighters look for is no where in any quotes from any firefighter on 911. Especially the term "creep"..Good try though. And I don't recognize NIST reports.

"Worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading"??? You are assuming again.

I do know more than some fire chief/engineers and especially you ,my old mercenary informant. If the fire chief mentions anything of the sort he wouldn't be alive now would he. But you knew that already.


But in order for you to REALLY learn something , I'd stop reading anything that has to do with NIST. Understand, you are no different that an evangelical with a bible.


All the best




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Well I'm not suggesting that they would be personally killing people lol, but covering up a murder is considered complicity.


I'm glad you understand that.


Can you give me an example? I have read an awful lot over the past 5 years and I've not seen many good examples.


You haven’t seen the videos of the buildings exploding? Or the eyewitness testimony about explosions?
Google it!


What is it with people and terms on this forum?! I'll use another phrase if you like, but people are incredibly touchy over anything, including 'Truth Movement'!


I don't care what term you use, just making another observation. People are not afraid of being labeled a conspiracy theorist anymore. This days if you question anything the government does they call you a conspiracy theorist.


I'll be similarly harsh. Even on this forum the proportion who believe in this theory is low, and there's so far not been a single coherent theory advanced that explains even a tiny fraction of the events of the day. It's been over a decade and people still can't even agree on what hit the towers.

That to me is not a sign of a massive worldwide awakening. I don't wanna make it a personal insult though so please don't take it as that.


It's simple... people don't believe the official theory anymore. And you are part of the reason people stop believing it. Your silly arguments don't add up. You don't even realize it, and that's the funniest part.
Keep clicking. We appreciate you.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
I know right... If they say it was "definitely secondary explosions" inside the lobby, than it means spray cans or firecrackers. LOL

I guess I'm confused as well! What do you think they meant?


What part of "definitely secondary explosions" are you confused about?


edit on 27-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.


I've been arguing with you for weeks that you are the one who thinks that you know better than the firemen on scene.

Show everybody how the buildings were slowly falling apart from fire... but try to do it without adding your personal feelings about what the firemen was saying while they were at ground zero Okay?


Wow ok, so you are asking for me to show you evidence of the building falling apart from fire, I give you a whole host of responses from people that were observing them and you ignore them claiming that I just am adding personal feeling into what they are saying.
wow. What a great way to stick you head in the sand when confronted with facts you dont want to hear. So I take it, when a firefighter said, the building is tilting, leaning, bulging, creaking, heavy fires throughout, large chunks missing, none of that matters to you or does not show serious damage done? Also you have been shown photos of a gash that ran down the face of the WTC7, and you pretend as if it is so hard to see through smoke. Since when can smoke create a perfect straight line shadow down the face? You have been shown countless pieces of evidence, and you ignore every single one. But if a firefighter mentions hearing an explosion when the whole damn building crashed down on top of him, then its, OMG Proof!!!! Proof of explosives bringing it down, there is no way that could mean anything else!! Geat real. I know what you are doing and you are practically screaming and kicking and doing everything you can to ignore the facts. You are not interested in the truth, you never were. Only when it agrees with your predetermined beliefs, and even when it doesnt, you stretch it as far as you can in order to fit.



Eyewitness accounts , NIST, Wiki, documents and articles are not facts or proof. You think they are.

Fire doesn't "spread 'n pulverize" steel structures. It has not happened before, it didn't happen on 911 and it will never happen in the future. That's what you call proof right there.





posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.


I've been arguing with you for weeks that you are the one who thinks that you know better than the firemen on scene.

Show everybody how the buildings were slowly falling apart from fire... but try to do it without adding your personal feelings about what the firemen was saying while they were at ground zero Okay?


Wow ok, so you are asking for me to show you evidence of the building falling apart from fire, I give you a whole host of responses from people that were observing them and you ignore them claiming that I just am adding personal feeling into what they are saying.
wow. What a great way to stick you head in the sand when confronted with facts you dont want to hear. So I take it, when a firefighter said, the building is tilting, leaning, bulging, creaking, heavy fires throughout, large chunks missing, none of that matters to you or does not show serious damage done? Also you have been shown photos of a gash that ran down the face of the WTC7, and you pretend as if it is so hard to see through smoke. Since when can smoke create a perfect straight line shadow down the face? You have been shown countless pieces of evidence, and you ignore every single one. But if a firefighter mentions hearing an explosion when the whole damn building crashed down on top of him, then its, OMG Proof!!!! Proof of explosives bringing it down, there is no way that could mean anything else!! Geat real. I know what you are doing and you are practically screaming and kicking and doing everything you can to ignore the facts. You are not interested in the truth, you never were. Only when it agrees with your predetermined beliefs, and even when it doesnt, you stretch it as far as you can in order to fit.



So to you when the building is tilting, leaning, bulging, creaking, heavy fires throughout, large chunks missing means total destruction of three skyscrapers with in 8 hours. Got it.. LOL

Hey why did marine 6 corrected the other firefighter by saying completely collapsed?


edit on 27-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
You are not interested in the truth, you never were.


I'm confused? If you believe the OS is the truth genradik why do you need to spend so much time protecting the OS?

If people who don't believe the OS are called truthers, then surely they are interested in finding the real truth?


So anyway, this video by a BBC Correspondent - Steve Evans who was there that day, states a series of explosions, which is consistent with controlled demolition explosives.

Secondly, he states that the structural failure was not apparent to the emergency forces, firemen etc, because their vehicles were close to the towers, and were heavily damaged.



So where WTC7 is concerned, especially with Barry Jennings' own account and numerous other accounts, it is highly likely explosives were used on all 3 buildings. Laws of Physics were defied that day, and explosives seem to have been heard and felt by many people.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
I know right... If they say it was "definitely secondary explosions" inside the lobby, than it means spray cans or firecrackers. LOL

I guess I'm confused as well! What do you think they meant?


What part of "definitely secondary explosions" are you confused about?


edit on 27-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


That's not answering the question as to what you are assuming they meant. Secondary just means following a first.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


okay to point out a couple things...i am a structural engineer....simple as that...now in your statement...the only energy available is not GRAVITY...gravity is a force acting upon the structure....gravity is not energy....the energy available comes from the PE in the upper block.....when the floors apparently are simultaneously removed....(which is a fallacy in itself)... the PE of the upper block becomes KE that is the only Available energy in the scenario.
Gravity is the accelerating force...not the energy.

so i had to correct you on that right there.....and if you did not understand that simple thing then how could you possibly even have an understanding on what Bazants paper is about.

Now the reason i also am so adamant on the Bazant paper is it affects my industry as it adds unnecessary costs to perfectly sound building techniques that have successfully built skyscrapers the world over using steel frame techniques that has not once ever suffered a complete progressive global collapse.

now since you just stated you have really no real understanding...the thing that is bothering me is when your saying i said he added extra energy.....I did not......so please stop with the crud......there is only the PE available according to the Os....now saying this...as the video shows in all it's glory.....there should definitely have been more than enough PE in the vid of the demo gone bad to initiate CRUSH UP (According to Bazants paper) in the demolition vid...yet guess what,,,,as i have said before it fails.......So if there is not even enough PE in the video where 90% of the building is the upper block.....then how could there ever be enough PE in a building where only 10% of the building (wtc) is crushing down.......

does that help.....probably not as you showed your understanding perfectly by calling gravity energy here.

now do i think there was another source of energy which could explain the collapse....Of course i do.....It is called explosives.....the resistant path...The path of greatest resistance ....had to be remove in oder for the upper block to even come close to generating a global collapse...as mi5 so eloquently stated....and if it was easy to be understood....then the only reason you cannot understand what is being said is.....

1.you choose not too
2. your trying to derail the thread
3.you actually don't have a clue what is being stated
4. OR all your decisions on what happened on the day are preconceived and your just here to argue.

Now i will state once more....as i have tried to discuss with mister Bazant himself.....His analysis is complete and utter rubbish.....and you know what.....It is complete and utter rubbish.

but you can keep on quoting Bazant.....as people keep on Quoting NIST as those two pieces of propaganda are the only two bits of...."official work" that has ~EVER been presented by the OS.

just as a fter thought...i would throw you a bit to read.


It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion
through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed
manner.
9
In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story
depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.


Stuff

just showing i am not the only engineer out there showing the fallacies in the OS.....







edit on 113131p://f46Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 123131p://f00Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
I know right... If they say it was "definitely secondary explosions" inside the lobby, than it means spray cans or firecrackers. LOL

I guess I'm confused as well! What do you think they meant?


What part of "definitely secondary explosions" are you confused about?


edit on 27-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


That's not answering the question as to what you are assuming they meant. Secondary just means following a first.


I don't have to assume anything, they are saying it in plain English.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Try searching the archives. Mr Jennings has been discussed here many times.

Signed,
The Official Story


Actually I have looked at the Barry Jennings archives and it seems to be lacking in responses from OS upholders?

Why is that? I have not seen any Barry Jennings threads where you, or any of the OS upholders in this thread have commented or analyzed on what he has said. It's like you are avoiding Barry Jennings like the plague.

Upon arrival inside WTC7, before the towers even collapsed he came across dead bodies inside WTC7, and then he experienced explosions, why was there dead bodies inside before the towers collapsed, and before any fires had started?

Can you answer this? I am guessing you cant, and wont address this?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

That's not answering the question as to what you are assuming they meant. Secondary just means following a first.


OK, what about this eye witness - Paul Lemos, he reported multiple bombs, like so many other people. They cannot all be wrong. I'm more inclined to believe these genuine witnesses that someone speculating on a forum.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


I don't have to assume anything, they are saying it in plain English.


Well that's fine. It's just that some might have thought you were claiming that the only construction that could be put on that is that they were referring to explosives ; which of course doesn't follow.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
okay to point out a couple things...i am a structural engineer....simple as that

I don't believe you. I think you're lying to make yourself sound more impressive. With all due respect, you mix up "your" and "you're". How many papers have you submitted with that mistake!


now in your statement...the only energy available is not GRAVITY...gravity is a force acting upon the structure....gravity is not energy....the energy available comes from the PE in the upper block.....

Sure, it's gravitational potential energy. No argument from me there.


now since you just stated you have really no real understanding...the thing that is bothering me is when your saying i said he added extra energy.....I did not......so please stop with the crud......

You have said "additional energy" and "extra energy". I'm not trying to misquote you!


there is only the PE available according to the Os....now saying this...as the video shows in all it's glory.....there should definitely have been more than enough PE in the vid of the demo gone bad to initiate CRUSH UP (According to Bazants paper)

According to what in Bazant's paper? Which paper? Please quote the equations so we can all see them.


then the only reason you cannot understand what is being said is.....

1.you choose not too
2. your trying to derail the thread
3.you actually don't have a clue what is being stated
4. OR all your decisions on what happened on the day are preconceived and your just here to argue.

Or I don't think you're right and you're not infallible. Are you really saying nobody has the right to argue with your posts? I think you're wrong and I'm asking you to provide evidence. It's not exactly something that should be a shock to anyone.

Like I said, I think you're just lying about being a Structural Engineer. If I am wrong then it should be an easy matter to post the equations from one of Bazant's papers and show us how the video you linked matches the equations he used, and how the output doesn't match. I would put money on you not doing this and instead claiming I am a shill.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
You haven’t seen the videos of the buildings exploding? Or the eyewitness testimony about explosions?
Google it!

I've seen eyewitness accounts of explosions sure, but that's not exactly proof of explosives, especially when some of the 'explosions' people quote are bodies hitting the floor, or the collapse itself. I've never seen a video where it's clear there's actual explosions going on though. Feel free to link one!


I don't care what term you use, just making another observation. People are not afraid of being labeled a conspiracy theorist anymore. This days if you question anything the government does they call you a conspiracy theorist.

I have no intention of insulting anyone with the terms I use, just trying to pick something that adequately describes whoever I am talking about.


It's simple... people don't believe the official theory anymore.

I don't even think that's accurate. Even on ATS, the proportion believing in a demolition conspiracy theory is barely above 50%:

It's hardly the most damning of evidence. Anyway this is just bickering and I don't really want to get into a back and forth over this. We have our differences and I won't begrudge you believing in things I don't.


Originally posted by maxella1
What part of "definitely secondary explosions" are you confused about?

What is supposed to have caused them.
edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: added extra quote



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Try searching the archives. Mr Jennings has been discussed here many times.

Signed,
The Official Story


Actually I have looked at the Barry Jennings archives and it seems to be lacking in responses from OS upholders?

Why is that? I have not seen any Barry Jennings threads where you, or any of the OS upholders in this thread have commented or analyzed on what he has said. It's like you are avoiding Barry Jennings like the plague.

Upon arrival inside WTC7, before the towers even collapsed he came across dead bodies inside WTC7, and then he experienced explosions, why was there dead bodies inside before the towers collapsed, and before any fires had started?

Can you answer this? I am guessing you cant, and wont address this?


You haven't searched very diligently because the Barry Jennings story has been dealt with many times and I personally have made various posts about it.

It is evident that you don't have much of a grasp of the story yourself because there was never any question of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 when Barry Jennings arrived.

The basic facts are that Barry Jennings went up to the OEM on the 23rd floor in an elevator with Michael Hess. They found the place deserted and in a phone call Barry was advised to get out. When they came to leave the elevator wouldn't function. This places the time as after 09.59 because the power was cut off at that time when the South Tower fell.

After scouting around, Michael Hess finds the stairs and they set off down. Their descent is prevented at 10.28 when debris from the collapsing North Tower rains down on WTC 7 and the stairwell is blocked.

They are rescued later and Barry gave an account of the firefightrers telling him not to look down and he had an impression of stepping over bodies in the lobby. Michael Hess has never referred to bodies and Barry later retracted his account emphasising he never saw any bodies.

This is just a brief outline because you will find it dealt with in detail via search.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Out of all the text i have just typed to you and that is the only mistake you can pinpoint to make yourself feel better....shame really.

and your completely wrong in the statement gravitational potential energy......wow.....

and personally that is the scapegoat tactic at use when you got pointed out as completely ignorant in a given subject matter.....and i gave you a quote....stating what i am saying...and do i quote Bazants failing paper....NOPE as i have said before...the paper is wrong...so to quote his work would be wrong...as it is wrong to quote the work of NIST as it too is wrong.
You got in over your head here and your trying to escape with the typical get out clauses.....you did not bother to go back through history of my posts.....AT all.
You got backed into a corner and cried wolf.....nice job exponent...you exposed yourself for the lack of understanding of physics.....good show.

PE all things have potential energy when in a force field...in this case...gravity being the force.

god i feel like i am back in my first year physics class..... you decided that you would throw in the towel and attack my profession because it does not agree.....as i have stated....look through my posts and you will see how consistent i am....and have never stated anything otherwise.....I am in a relaxed position chilling out sorry if i got a little lazy with my conjunctions.
but if that is the best you can do rather than look at the possibility i may be right in what i have stated....then it must be #4 which your choosing.

but just for arguments sake....say i am not what i say i am...(but it is what i do)... I have already shown to people your sadly lacking in any understanding of physics.....so for you to try to back up a paper that you cannot ever possibly come to understand...it shows them who is actually understanding what is being presented.....

So go join the team of OS.....and because at one point you stated your not on either side.....but it is clear what you choose to believe.....you only believe the OS.


oh yes,...just to show to others how you misquote me.....this is what i said.


The additional energy is inherent in the Bazant report


you see......the difference.....If there is not enough kinetic energy to cause crush down and then crush up then the energy Bazant needs to complete this has to be inherent in his paper.....

i know it seems small but it is huge in the discussion of his paper....because he tried to use differential equations and erroneous figures to draw the conclusions he came up with...and if he was correct...then the building in the demo vid would hold true and follow the same process of collapse.

now the reason i try not to mention my job...is as many know about...it can be professional suicide....because people will do just as you have done...when it does not jive with the OS.....it becomes a smear campaign.

but you have shown your ignorance.....(lack of understanding) ....just in case you don't know the definition of ignorance.

so when you chose to actually learn something from someone who might have a better understanding than yourself you might be able to move forward.









edit on 123131p://f48Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I've seen eyewitness accounts of explosions sure, but that's not exactly proof of explosives, especially when some of the 'explosions' people quote are bodies hitting the floor, or the collapse itself. I've never seen a video where it's clear there's actual explosions going on though. Feel free to link one!


I take it you've not seen this video then?



NIST refused to test for any demolition residues. They did not even analyze the steel from WTC7!

They tried to claim fires caused a critical column (column #79) to be the cause of a total free fall collapse! Obviously NIST were just theorizing, and failed/refused to examine all the evidence, so could only theorize. Hence why their data and models are completely way off the mark. Yet the OS upholders back NIST's data?

I could post literally numerous eye witness accounts talking of multiple bombs/explosions and with bomb sounds going off, this can be the only explanation for all 3 buildings coming down the way they did.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

You haven't searched very diligently because the Barry Jennings story has been dealt with many times and I personally have made various posts about it.


I have and didn't find any, please do link me up, I'd love to know what you wrote in them.



It is evident that you don't have much of a grasp of the story yourself because there was never any question of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 when Barry Jennings arrived.


This remark makes no sense at all, you are just repeating what I said, so does that mean you have no grasp either? I think you know full well I have a very good grasp on this subject.

So as I stated, if the bodies were there upon Barry's arrival, do you care to tell me why they were dead? This was before any towers collapsed, and before any fires were started in WTC7? There was no reason for dead bodies at that stage!



The basic facts are that Barry Jennings went up to the OEM on the 23rd floor in an elevator with Michael Hess. They found the place deserted and in a phone call Barry was advised to get out. When they came to leave the elevator wouldn't function. This places the time as after 09.59 because the power was cut off at that time when the South Tower fell.

After scouting around, Michael Hess finds the stairs and they set off down. Their descent is prevented at 10.28 when debris from the collapsing North Tower rains down on WTC 7 and the stairwell is blocked.

They are rescued later and Barry gave an account of the firefightrers telling him not to look down and he had an impression of stepping over bodies in the lobby. Michael Hess has never referred to bodies and Barry later retracted his account emphasising he never saw any bodies.



So you are contradicting yourself, one minute you say bodies upon arrival, then you mould the story so the bodies occurred later. They were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.

Where are you getting these fictitious times from? Barry went in soon after the 'plane' impact, he clearly states he saw the towers were still standing before explosions went off, and he clearly states as firemen came to rescue him later, they ran off because the first tower collapsed!

You are making stuff up, Barry's account has been repeated on video a few times and on radio a few times, each time it's accurate, each time it's the same, he never retracts anything. Their is a BBC video that is heavily cut, but the uncut version reveals everything.


This is just a brief outline because you will find it dealt with in detail via search.


Oh, I have done plenty of research into Barry Jennings, don't worry about my knowledge on his account, and the very fact you are making stuff up shows you've either not done any homework yourself, or your trying to distort the real facts for some other reason? Barry Jennings knows what Barry Jennings saw, no one in the world can refute that.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
I take it you've not seen this video then?

I've seen the bits that make it up, but what sort of definitive proof is this supposed to be? Because someone said 'explosion' then that means there was controlled demolition? Is that the only possible connection?


NIST refused to test for any demolition residues. They did not even analyze the steel from WTC7!

They didn't have any steel from WTC7 to test. What are they supposed to do explosive residue tests on?


They tried to claim fires caused a critical column (column #79) to be the cause of a total free fall collapse! Obviously NIST were just theorizing, and failed/refused to examine all the evidence, so could only theorize. Hence why their data and models are completely way off the mark. Yet the OS upholders back NIST's data?

But their models weren't way off, in fact they even reproduced the penthouse collapse as it happened to within a pretty close margin of error (considering they were simulating a whole building!) Why do you think they were way off? Because someone told you so?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Out of all the text i have just typed to you and that is the only mistake you can pinpoint to make yourself feel better....shame really.

and your completely wrong in the statement gravitational potential energy......wow.....

You're. You claim to be a Structural Engineer but you can't even use simple punctuation or spell things correctly. How are we supposed to believe you?


and personally that is the scapegoat tactic at use when you got pointed out as completely ignorant in a given subject matter.....and i gave you a quote....stating what i am saying...and do i quote Bazants failing paper....NOPE as i have said before...the paper is wrong...so to quote his work would be wrong...as it is wrong to quote the work of NIST as it too is wrong.

So you admit you cannot even quote the part that is at fault. You claim to be an Engineer but then cannot even post an excerpt. How ridiculous.


You got in over your head here and your trying to escape with the typical get out clauses.....you did not bother to go back through history of my posts.....AT all.
You got backed into a corner and cried wolf.....nice job exponent...you exposed yourself for the lack of understanding of physics.....good show.

You don't even know what 'cried wolf' means. I'm supposed to believe you're an educated adult when you can't even use a simple phrase correctly?


but just for arguments sake....say i am not what i say i am...(but it is what i do)... I have already shown to people your sadly lacking in any understanding of physics.....so for you to try to back up a paper that you cannot ever possibly come to understand...it shows them who is actually understanding what is being presented.....

You have shown nothing of the sort, you have lied and misrepresented the truth. You have claimed qualifications you clearly can't back up, and knowledge you clearly don't have.

I would be willing to believe you, but it's clear from your evasion and complete lack of any details whatsoever that you are just lying to everyone here. If I am wrong you should be able to prove it simply, show the equation that matters in Bazant and correct it. You never will.




top topics



 
46
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join