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.
Originally posted by Nutter
How about all the evidence and blueprints? You can't peer review something with just the data from itself.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by Nutter
How about all the evidence and blueprints? You can't peer review something with just the data from itself.
No, that's exactly what a peer review does.
It takes the data from a journal article and checks to make sure that correct methodology was followed. They never have access to the raw data.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by hgfbob
and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion
Prove I said this.
Or admit that you're lying and retract this misrepresentation of what I said.
Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by hgfbob
hgfbob, that is a good question about if NIST knew about the free fall period when they released their initial report. I went back and watched the video of their response to Chandler but I still can't make up my mind. It seems pretty stupid to me to use as their defense that free fall could not have happened if in fact they were all ready aware that it did happen. Their responses also seem especially lame and desperate like they were caught totally off guard. But then, on the other hand, these free fall claims have been around for years so I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have discovered this before releasing their initial report.
The rest of your post I agree with.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by hgfbob
when did Bazant have his paper again?.....9-12-01
It was first published on 9/13 in its most simplified form showing a single floor drop was enough to overcome load carry capacity. It exists in the 'official story' only as a reference.
ummmmm....WHAT large impact...7 wasn't hit by a plane, and falling debris didn't contribute to the collapse
...WTC 3,4,5,6 had debris fall DIRECTLY on them....not one had total global collapse
....and WHAT do YOU mean "it doesn't" fall at 9.8m/s^2 (are you actually resorting to lying?),
It means that as soon as the kink is formed, the ENTIRE building is falling as fast as an object can fall...with NO resistance...NOTHING to slow it
DO YOU UNDERSTAND
and as far as progressive collapse...if there WERE a progressive collapse, WE WOULD SEE IT...there is TOO much weight with the other PH and the HUGE HVAC unit, THEY WILL NOT STAY when vertical support is removed...THAT is PROVEN by the EAST PH falling in when it's vertical support was removed....Progressive collapse occurs when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the collapse of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes additional collapse. The resulting damage is DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause...the EPH falling in, WOULD NOT CAUSE a total global collapse of the ENTIRE building, EVENLY at a free fall ACCELERATED rate...THAT WE ALL SEE
Originally posted by hgfbob
WRONG...you can not have a true peer review process UNLESS you release the HYPOTHESIS, and WHAT led you to the HYPOTHESIS...that INCLUDES all the data
NIST STILL REFUSES
paper released 1-09 refuting the "jolt" that NIST and Bazant 'SAY' is what initiates the collapses in BOTH towers...THEY include ALL the data in their paper so others can check the work
Originally posted by hgfbob
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by hgfbob
and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion
Prove I said this.
Or admit that you're lying and retract this misrepresentation of what I said.
YOUR the one who said the FACADE just GAVE WAY...YOUR the one who said EVERYTHING followed the EPH falling in.....YOUR the one who said ALL the steel acted the SAME
free fall ACCELERATION of the ENTIRE building= NO resistance of the vertical support...if something is there, it HAS to offer resistance
So.....HOW do the perimeter columns, give NO MORE resistance that any other vertical support involved in fire
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by hgfbob
WRONG...you can not have a true peer review process UNLESS you release the HYPOTHESIS, and WHAT led you to the HYPOTHESIS...that INCLUDES all the data
NIST STILL REFUSES
paper released 1-09 refuting the "jolt" that NIST and Bazant 'SAY' is what initiates the collapses in BOTH towers...THEY include ALL the data in their paper so others can check the work
Ok, so you just showed that you really don'y know what a peer review is. Show me one example where the reviewers don't rely on the info contained in the report that they're reviewing.
The structural docs are private property. NIST is prohibited by law from releasing them in their entirety. They DID include relevant documentation to prove their hypothesis. And again, qualified SE's don't have a problem with it.
Then you're saying that Tony's paper has all the relevant structural documentation then? So what's your beef?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by hgfbob
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by hgfbob
and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion
Prove I said this.
Or admit that you're lying and retract this misrepresentation of what I said.
YOUR the one who said the FACADE just GAVE WAY...YOUR the one who said EVERYTHING followed the EPH falling in.....YOUR the one who said ALL the steel acted the SAME
free fall ACCELERATION of the ENTIRE building= NO resistance of the vertical support...if something is there, it HAS to offer resistance
So.....HOW do the perimeter columns, give NO MORE resistance that any other vertical support involved in fire
I notice that you're unable to quote where I said that "COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion". I'm not surprised that a retraction doesn't accompany this.
How much resistance then? If you're unable to quantify it, then you're just arguing from incredulity.
You mean the ones that were buckled, as evidenced by the EPH falling in? Since they were therefore gone and offered 0% resistance, 1% resistance is greater than 0%.Are you able to grasp this relatively simple concept?
Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by hgfbob
I don't think you are even reading my posts, yours does not even make sense. What do you want me to post for all to see? You are wrong regarding NISTs fire tests, you do not understand what the results mean, and implicitly this must mean you do not understand NISTs theory.
This topic may be about WTC7, but you brought these claims up and so I feel I should point out they are completely false.
How much more specific would you like?
Originally posted by hgfbob
the NIST THEORY,(mission), is to have FIRE be the cause...EVERYTHING else is ignored.
HOW does taking FACTS from the NIST report, make it... NOT TRUE?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by hgfbob
the NIST THEORY,(mission), is to have FIRE be the cause...EVERYTHING else is ignored.
So what initiated collapse in NISTs theory?
HOW does taking FACTS from the NIST report, make it... NOT TRUE?
Originally posted by Desucher
The fires were massive, and the building remained standing for several hours before it collapsed.
I don't see what's so surprising here.