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.

 

“What about building 7?”

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob


then support the claimed NEW physics of LOW TEMP thermal expansion

en.wikipedia.org.../File
ehnungsfuge.jpg
"Expansion joint in a road bridge used to avoid damage from thermal expansion."
As I have stated multiple times, bridges can suffer damage from thermal expansion at LOW TEMPS unless accounted for, as you see, with an expansion joint. This can occur at LOW TEMPS of 35C.

Now, you need to provide evidence that girder W33 could not expand at the LOW TEMP of, minimally, 300C or as much as 600C.

Please show your work.


"NIST is withholding 68,246 files.

How is your FEA analysis coming?


peer review is about verification

Not really. Showing your knowledge of pretty much everything is minimal.


point to the verification of this NEW physics that only occurred on 9-11

I find it hard to believe you are still asking for verification of thermal expansion. Why is this a known quality to everyone except you?




posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




in a road bridge


NO
, a STEEL FRAMED BUILDING!!!

a bridge has to be able to expand to prevent buckling during the summertime heat...buildings are NOT designed to expand in the summertime heat!!!


however, the found event of global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. means a CLEAR, UNOBSTRUCTED path was created BEFORE 1.74 seconds to allow the symmetrical unified descent WE ALL SEE, to 4.0s.....

and ALL taught science states that MUST occur...


so now tell me how this NEW phenomenon of low temp thermal expansion created that path BEFORE 1.74 seconds, as it must do to get the visual we all see, completely eradicating resistance to ZERO, for that 105 vertical feet!


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Shyam Sunder at he 2008 NIST technical briefing webcast




How is your FEA analysis coming?



"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."


as soon as they release that data....there will be MORE than enough!!!!



so....how's yours?????.....still hidden I see.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob


NO a STEEL FRAMED BUILDING

It is an example of thermal expansion.


EQUAL to g. means a CLEAR, UNOBSTRUCTED path

Which does not address the thermal expansion that occurred almost 30 secs before this which created the conditions for the progressive collapse.

Another straw man.


NEW phenomenon of low temp thermal expansion

Thermal expansion is neither new nor a phenomenon. You continue to quote Dr. Sunder out of context completely misapplying his comments. You have been corrected on this numerous times, so this is tantamount to lying.


as soon as they release that data

I don't want NIST's simulations. I have those. I want yours challenging the NIST conclusions. Again, explained to you numerous times. You continue to avoid this question.


so....how's yours

As stated, NIST's are in full view for everyone to see. I'm still waiting for you to offer something that proves them incorrect.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




As stated, NIST's are in full view for everyone to see.


.....HEAVY on the words..'AS STATED"......seems that is all you do...I have support for everything I post, YOU reply back with out-of-context replies........hows that make ya feel knowing that is what you have to do!!!!!

well here is what NIST has on view.....get your very own today!


Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST


oops, NO esplanation for the NEW PHYSICS that seemed to only occur on 9-11.


but you are welcome to change that with a simple little link to the outside world showing this....that you continually "STATE" is there



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob


I have support for everything I post

Since you are quoting mining from the very report I am going to direct you to, linking this for you would be redundant.

And there isn't anything you've quoted which does anything to disprove the conclusions of NIST. When you get to that I'll consider linking something.


Dear Mr. Bob

How is your FEA analysis coming?


NO esplanation for the NEW PHYSICS

Thermal expansion at LOW TEMPS is not new physics....new phenomenon....or even new science. Everyone seems to know this but you.


but you are welcome to change that with a simple little link to the outside world showing this

Ok. If you really need it:
NCSTAR 1-9
Vols 1 & 2

I'm still waiting for you post SOMETHING that proves any of this wrong.
edit on 2014-07-12T15:47:15-05:00pm73120147America/ChicagopmSat, 12 Jul 2014 15:47:15 -05001 by cantonear1968 because: formatting



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




Ok. If you really need it:
NCSTAR 1-9
Vols 1 & 2

I'm still waiting for you post SOMETHING that proves any of this wrong.



lmao!!!

dude, posting that does WHAT for ya???


why can't ya do this.....


"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"


hey, if ya just want to post the name...look at this....

The Bible

.....



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob


dude, posting that does WHAT for ya???

References an engineering report which adequately explains the collapse of WTC 7, which has been vetted by the engineering community for its "thoroughness" and enjoys a consensus for its accuracy.

Do you have something similar that refutes this?


NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235
NIST 1-3 p.99
NIST 1-3 6.6.2
NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2

We are discussing WTC 7. Please stop referencing a report explaining the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2.


The Bible

I'm sure you thought this to be clever, but we are discussing WTC 7. Do you have anything that refutes their results?
edit on 2014-07-12T16:07:52-05:00pm73120147America/ChicagopmSat, 12 Jul 2014 16:07:52 -05001 by cantonear1968 because: quotations



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




Do you have something similar that refutes this?

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235
NIST 1-3 p.99
NIST 1-3 6.6.2
NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2




...as soon as YOU post the quotes from what ever you are pointing to, we can DEBATE it...ya know cantoneer, me thinks YOU have NO IDEA what 'debate' means...........FRANTICALLY waving your arms, flailing around does WHAT for ya????

what purpose does posting the name of the volume when you provide NO QUOTE for me to respond to......
....TOO funny!!!!!!!

pretty much what the Gov. does huh....see here it is, ALL the evidence is in here yet NO ONE can seem to PINPOINT where!!!





References an engineering report which adequately explains the collapse of WTC 7,


yea....you reference the report but point to NO explanation....hows that working out for ya?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob


Do you have something similar that refutes this?


.......crickets......????

So you don't. You have nothing that refutes NIST's conclusions. Just JAQ and continually asking for "quotes".

Gotcha.


when you provide NO QUOTE for me to respond to

I don't want you to respond to quotes Bob. I want you to offer something that refutes the NIST conclusions. It's all I have asked from you for 6 years.

How is your FEA analysis coming?


pretty much what the Gov. does huh

Please. A little more of this Bob. I want to see you devolve into a pure paranoid explosion.


you reference the report but point to NO explanation

I've explained both the collapse initiation and the period of FFA to you many times. You never respond with any countering information.

How's your FEA analysis coming?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




You have nothing that refutes NIST's conclusions


nor do I...the 2005 NIST found NO scientific reason for collapse x3..


"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


those 10,000+ pages are THEIR REPORT!!!
your point???




I want you to offer something that refutes the NIST conclusions.


that WARM STEEL fell these three buildings on 9-11 as NO OTHERS in history.......seems that is YOUR department OS pusher.

using a NEW never before seen physics phenomenon.....


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."



......

.....oh, I'm sorry, I was watching the grass grow for a second......why CANT ya POINT to a peer review of this claim SUPPORTED by the structural community.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

Ok Bob. There was a time when I would have enjoyed spending the next 2 hours....or next 2 months for that matter.....countering your constant spamming.

That time is passed.

I can see that for the last 6 years your argument has not progressed past "Free Fall" even though this has been explained to you multiple times and you avoid answering any and all questions put to you. We can see once again an example of your deception by posting page reports from WTCs 1 & 2 when we are discussing WTC 7, even though this deception was pointed out to you.

Nothing new to address. When you come up something new, let me know. Until then, I'll leave you with this last question:

How's your FEA analysis coming?




posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




countering your constant spamming.


with CONTRADICTION!!!


hows that workin out for ya?????





How's your FEA analysis coming?


as soon as YOU tell me HOW one can REPLICATE a like scenario for a peer review when the data variables are STILL hidden from view???


"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."



so AGAIN....no data to review....NO peer review.


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


why do they REFUSE peer review on their BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon of "Low Temp Thermal Expansion"?

do YOU understand what DEBATE is.....and WHOM is responsible to PROVIDE proof..


tell me, the ones ASKING and DEMANDING it, [me/truthers],....or the ones PUSHING it?????....[YOU/official story].



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
We could always question Bush and Cheney directly about building 7. I'm sure they would have no problems facing any questions about 9/11-- you know, as long as they're allowed to be in the same room at the same time and none of it is under oath.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: cantonear1968

do YOU understand what DEBATE is.....and WHOM is responsible to PROVIDE proof..


tell me, the ones ASKING and DEMANDING it, [me/truthers],....or the ones PUSHING it?????....[YOU/official story].


It's the ones asking. Especially if everybody pretty much agrees with the current explanation.

Nobody is under any obligation to give you anything, either from a moral, legal or practical point of view. If you think you have uncovered something monstrous then start publicising it, get it out there. Try to change minds. But for god's sake stop trying to lay down the rules of a fight you've already lost.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




It's the ones asking. Especially if everybody pretty much agrees with the current explanation.


lol..oh gee.......more that you know NOTHING about.

the Dictum of BOTH Law and Debate is Those whom assert MUST prove......[Roberts Rules Of Order]

FIRST come the ASSERTED official claims PUSHED as truth..

now 'truthers', me, are asking questions and DEMANDING that supporting evidence...


everyone agrees because THAT is what they are TOLD.....DUH!

prove it.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

Oh. Oh I see. Sorry, I didn't realise there was a rule.

A special rule.

Okay. I'll tell you what, how about you go and get the guys that enforce the rules to come round my house and tell me to answer you. Because from where I'm standing you're just a strange guy shouting on the internet, and I kind of feel like even if the rules say one thing, practice suggests that you maybe need to try a bit harder.




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




Oh. Oh I see. Sorry, I didn't realise there was a rule.

A special rule.



yea there is.....in THIS Country, ALL courts, Congress and ANY OTHER like gatherings use as a guideline for meetings........don't know much...do ya.

google it......lol!


now that ya made yerself look even LESS credible than before, [as if that's possible], tell me of the NEW physics phenomenon that fell 7 EQUAL to g. for 105 vertical feet for a third of it's 6.5 second collapse.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

*makes cup of tea.

*waits for special argument cops to arrive.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

oh, so now we need to resort to personal attacks huh.....

and you actually consider yourself a cop?

not a very good one are ya.....

another pattern you show here is moving on to the next, as I push the previous in your face!!!!!!!


and I don't drink tea....but now I know where you are from....why is it SO many official story, 'people', are from Britain.....Cantoneer is also....

seems strange.....



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob




...as soon as YOU post the quotes from what ever you are pointing to, we can DEBATE it...ya know cantoneer, me thinks YOU have NO IDEA what 'debate' means...........FRANTICALLY waving your arms, flailing around does WHAT for ya????


Just another troll using the same terms thrown at them a few pages back that had relevance directed at you but you seem to fail grasp the meaning of many things said and keep chugging forward.

Its good to have such a passion but more often than not a persons passion blinds them to the simplest of things.




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join