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: 6share:
a reply to: cantonear1968
same shot, different angles.....and yet, the 2005 NIST scientific investigation does not see much.
and the facade that is attached to the perimeter vertical support is where they measured the global unified acceleration equal to g. that occurred for 105 vertical feet within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.
no Canty, 2005 NIST already found the global unified FFA.....it took three years of stalling to get to the end of the Presidential term, then they claimed "new science" did this......the refuse to prove through science.
then SHOW them to be, stop, 'forever' only telling of it......your entire post, NO link to anything......just as when you posted on utube.....NOTHING!
Canty, the "I already did that" did not work on utube, why do you think it will work here?
that is all I post, FACTS from that 10,000+ pages and taught science......
why is it you, [fighting to hold it in], people ever post from that report to support the science pushed as truth??
you seem to have to reference duhbunking sites, that 'tell' the people what is really in there....lol
how does one 'challenge' when there is NOTHING to challenge???
refusing to peer review outside the authors....straight to official story, keeping the agenda alive since day one.
I've pointed out page numbers and sections from the NIST WTC 7 Report with, IIRC, 80 pages of visible fire in WTC 7.
same shot, different angles.....and yet, the 2005 NIST scientific investigation does not see much.
NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
and the facade that is attached to the perimeter vertical support is where they measured the global unified acceleration equal to g. that occurred for 105 vertical feet within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.
NIST "stalled" their WTC 7 Report because they were finishing their report on WTCs 1 & 2. They released initial findings and then returned to the job at hand.
no Canty, 2005 NIST already found the global unified FFA.....it took three years of stalling to get to the end of the Presidential term, then they claimed "new science" did this......the refuse to prove through science.
You are simply repeating falsehoods.
then SHOW them to be, stop, 'forever' only telling of it......your entire post, NO link to anything......just as when you posted on utube.....NOTHING!
You have been given science and facts multiple times. You have never offered anything to counter them.
Canty, the "I already did that" did not work on utube, why do you think it will work here?
that is all I post, FACTS from that 10,000+ pages and taught science......
why is it you, [fighting to hold it in], people ever post from that report to support the science pushed as truth??
you seem to have to reference duhbunking sites, that 'tell' the people what is really in there....lol
Since the "official claims" remain unchallenged
how does one 'challenge' when there is NOTHING to challenge???
refusing to peer review outside the authors....straight to official story, keeping the agenda alive since day one.
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
You have the right to appeal this determination. Such an appeal must be made in writing and received within 30 calendar days of the date on this letter addressed to:
Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office)
Room 5898-C
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230
Your appeal should include a copy of you original request,a copy of this determination,and a statement of the reason(s) you believe this determination to be in error and why these records should be made fully available 10 you. Both your letter and the envelope in which it is mailed should be prominently marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal.!!
Sincerely,
~:/_/~~A/
( Catherine S. Fletcher Freedom of Information Act Officer
originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: cantonear1968
I've pointed out page numbers and sections from the NIST WTC 7 Report with, IIRC, 80 pages of visible fire in WTC 7.
same shot, different angles.....and yet, the 2005 NIST scientific investigation does not see much.
Hand waving to avoid inconvenient facts. I've given you report and page number; specifically NCSTAR 1-9, pgs 195-242 [pdf 239-286, showing multiple fires on multiple floors which have been labelled and time stamped. Please be specific on which shots are "same shot, different angles".
NCSTAR1A-3.2"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
Which does not address the specific information of multiple fires I have referenced for you, nor is it in any way a contradiction to what I wrote. The floors of WTC 7 were 46 200 sqr ft. It is not a contradiction that most of the fire would be beyond the, at most, 330 ft of window frontage.
and the facade that is attached to the perimeter vertical support is where they measured the global unified acceleration equal to g. that occurred for 105 vertical feet within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.
Which was the 2nd phase of a 3 part collapse sequence. The 1st stage was decidedly less than FFA. Which is the stage of columns buckling; not being blown apart.
NIST "stalled" their WTC 7 Report because they were finishing their report on WTCs 1 & 2. They released initial findings and then returned to the job at hand.
no Canty, 2005 NIST already found the global unified FFA.....it took three years of stalling to get to the end of the Presidential term, then they claimed "new science" did this......the refuse to prove through science.
Opinion, not facts. As NIST stated in their FAQ released 9/17/2010:
Why did the investigation take so long to complete?
The overall NIST investigation began on Aug. 21, 2002. Early in the investigation, a decision was made to complete studies of the two tower collapses (WTC 1 and WTC 2) before fully proceeding on the WTC 7 investigation. A major technical conference on the draft reports on WTC 1 and WTC 2 occurred on Sept. 13-15, 2005. The time between the technical conference on the WTC towers report and the issuance of this draft WTC 7 report is approximately three years, comparable to the length of a typical investigation of an aircraft crash.
Anything beyond this, unless you have specific information, is merely speculation on your part.
You are simply repeating falsehoods.
then SHOW them to be, stop, 'forever' only telling of it......your entire post, NO link to anything......just as when you posted on utube.....NOTHING!
I just did. You have not addressed the pictures of fire in NCSTAR 1-9 and you are simply making things up about the length of the investigation.
You have been given science and facts multiple times. You have never offered anything to counter them.
Canty, the "I already did that" did not work on utube, why do you think it will work here?
that is all I post, FACTS from that 10,000+ pages and taught science......
why is it you, [fighting to hold it in], people ever post from that report to support the science pushed as truth??
you seem to have to reference duhbunking sites, that 'tell' the people what is really in there....lol
Again, I have done so. I await your specific response.
Since the "official claims" remain unchallenged
how does one 'challenge' when there is NOTHING to challenge???
Bold assertion. Not fact based rebuttal
refusing to peer review outside the authors....straight to official story, keeping the agenda alive since day one.
The NIST WTC Reports have been in the public domain for 6 years and have been reviewed by multiple engineering companies. They are used for current guidelines in building construction [ARUP Group] and have been "fully endorsed" by respected organizations such as the NFPA and The ICC. Your statement is, again, baseless.
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."......(edited for length)
Absence of evidence is not evidence Bob. If you are unsatisfied with NIST's refusal to release their data, you have legal recourse to challenge. However, it is still not evidence of wrong doing. You need to actually show this by, for example, running your own FEA analysis to challenge NIST's results.
I await your own results on this.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: cantonear1968
There is also no question that NIST said that debris did nothing to initiate the collapse of the building.
I never said it did. What DOES NIST say initiated the collapse? And how DO they say this occurred?
Yes it was hit by the debris cloud but I would love to see the footage of falling debris hitting 7....
Honestly, I don't even know what to do with this. If you are unable to find footage of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC 7 then I really don't believe you are trying very hard.
a reply to: cantonear1968
facts, you call posting video of 10 second shots of fire facts???...we are not disputing the spot fires, we are disputing the FACT none of them did anything to the steel to allow global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. to occur.
seems YOU are trying to TRYING to state I said no fire occurred.....
uhm....yes it does. the acceleration equal to gravity was measured by the 2005 NIST from the facade that is attached to the perimeter vertical support where there is NO Fire needed to create conditions for the global UNIFIED acceleration EQUAL to g.
the facade is a non load bearing, COSMETIC application, it will not hold itself up let alone anything else. since there is NO FIRE there that is sorely needed to remove resistance of the perimeter columns.......what did?
and WITHIN a scientific contest....means SH*T unless it is PROVED...you seem to recite the PROBLEM....
yes Shyam TRIES to esplain all that here at the 2008 Tech briefing when they were still TRYING to hide the fact of global unified acceleration found by the earlier 2005 NIST.
remember this video.....
where he claims the phases YOU describe are a BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN PHYSICS phenomenon.....new science they refuse to prove through science....wonder why?!?!?!?
bunker....yea I know the routine...you say the ONE columns falls the EPH....yet in the SAME breath, you want ALL the rest of the load bearing vertical support to completely fail under the MASSIVE WEIGHT of the roof and everything on it, to have it magically FLOAT till that pathetic scenario concluded!!!LMAO!
..all to give us the IMPRESSION of global unified acceleration EQUAL to g....[shakes head....wonders what is in Canty's Cheerios]
funny how you can ONLY point to either a, FAQ, cover sheet, or a preface page.....how bout POSTING the actual SCIENCE from the 10,000+ page report that SHOWS what you say is true......
they can write WHAT EVER THEY WANT to after the fact.....doesn't means a damn thin UNLESS it is validated..verified....PEER REVIEWED!
POST THE SCIENCE!
and contain NO VERIFIABLE data supporting the PUSHED official claims.
the 2005 NIST report is from 200 volunteers whom did NOT find a scientific reason for collapse x3....to which you shill can't post anything to the contrary.
now you can go and say...'cherry-picking'.....'quote-mining'..from the 10,000+ page report.....then you can explain why YOU CAN'T!
you seem to NEED Bunker sites that ''ESPLAIN' what the reports REALLY mean....
there is NO claim WITHIN the report.....the claim is with the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew IGNORING their earlier report to claim NEW science.....
the ones you run from.....now why don't YOU tell me how ANY of those....'reputable' Engineering firms has a so-called peer review of the UNRELEASED hypothesized data from the 2008 NIST????
how does one replicate, which is what PEER REVIEW is, when there is NO DATA to replicate???????
there is NO physical evidence supporting this NEW SCIENCE.........ALL scientific white paper evidence they refuse to release outside the authors...just bully.
ah.....ah....AHHHHH....BULL#!
current guidelines....lol.....there have been NO code changed in THIS Country as a result of 9-11. "fully endorsed"'....again......NO credibility what-so-ever....basically cosmetic candy.
'credibility' is a PEER REVIEW of the scientific data!
....not fellow cronies agreeing.
no problem, PEER REVIEW is about replication of a process to see if one gets the SAME results.....now when they release the 68,000+ files of data variables that TELL their ONLY EVIDENCE of collapse models what to do and how to behave to SHOW the brand new never before seen physics phenomenon of "Low Temp Thermal Expansion" and HOW it completely removes the 105 vertical feet structural resistance, including all the continuous vertical support columns; 8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams; lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout; tens of thousands of bolts and welds; interior partitions; utilities; office contents, ALL globally removed BEFORE 1.74 seconds to allow UNIFIED acceleration EQUAL to g. @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s....as found by the 2005 NIST.......then we shall have a peer review....but not until.
Absence of evidence is not evidence Canty!
Hand waving to avoid inconvenient facts
facts, you call posting video of 10 second shots of fire facts???...we are not disputing the spot fires, we are disputing the FACT none of them did anything to the steel to allow global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. to occur.
seems YOU are trying to TRYING to state I said no fire occurred.....
NCSTAR1A-3.2"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
Which does not address the specific information of multiple fires I have referenced for you
uhm....yes it does. the acceleration equal to gravity was measured by the 2005 NIST from the facade that is attached to the perimeter vertical support where there is NO Fire needed to create conditions for the global UNIFIED acceleration EQUAL to g.
the facade is a non load bearing, COSMETIC application, it will not hold itself up let alone anything else. since there is NO FIRE there that is sorely needed to remove resistance of the perimeter columns.......what did?
Which was the 2nd phase of a 3 part collapse sequence. The 1st stage was decidedly less than FFA. Which is the stage of columns buckling; not being blown apart.
and WITHIN a scientific contest....means SH*T unless it is PROVED...you seem to recite the PROBLEM....
yes Shyam TRIES to esplain all that here at the 2008 Tech briefing when they were still TRYING to hide the fact of global unified acceleration found by the earlier 2005 NIST.
remember this video.....
Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing
"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
where he claims the phases YOU describe are a BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN PHYSICS phenomenon.....new science they refuse to prove through science....wonder why?!?!?!?
bunker....yea I know the routine...you say the ONE columns falls the EPH....yet in the SAME breath, you want ALL the rest of the load bearing vertical support to completely fail under the MASSIVE WEIGHT of the roof and everything on it, to have it magically FLOAT till that pathetic scenario concluded!!!LMAO!
..all to give us the IMPRESSION of global unified acceleration EQUAL to g....[shakes head....wonders what is in Canty's Cheerios]
Opinion, not facts. As NIST stated in their FAQ released 9/17/2010:
funny how you can ONLY point to either a, FAQ, cover sheet, or a preface page.....how bout POSTING the actual SCIENCE from the 10,000+ page report that SHOWS what you say is true......
they can write WHAT EVER THEY WANT to after the fact.....doesn't means a damn thin UNLESS it is validated..verified....PEER REVIEWED!
POST THE SCIENCE!
The NIST WTC Reports have been in the public domain for 6 years and have been reviewed by multiple engineering companies.
and contain NO VERIFIABLE data supporting the PUSHED official claims.
the 2005 NIST report is from 200 volunteers whom did NOT find a scientific reason for collapse x3....to which you shill can't post anything to the contrary.
"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"
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
now you can go and say...'cherry-picking'.....'quote-mining'..from the 10,000+ page report.....then you can explain why YOU CAN'T!
you seem to NEED Bunker sites that ''ESPLAIN' what the reports REALLY mean....
there is NO claim WITHIN the report.....the claim is with the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew IGNORING their earlier report to claim NEW science.....
the ones you run from.....now why don't YOU tell me how ANY of those....'reputable' Engineering firms has a so-called peer review of the UNRELEASED hypothesized data from the 2008 NIST????
how does one replicate, which is what PEER REVIEW is, when there is NO DATA to replicate???????
"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."
there is NO physical evidence supporting this NEW SCIENCE.........ALL scientific white paper evidence they refuse to release outside the authors...just bully.
They are used for current guidelines in building construction [ARUP Group] and have been "fully endorsed" by respected organizations such as the NFPA and The ICC.
ah.....ah....AHHHHH....BULL#!
current guidelines....lol.....there have been NO code changed in THIS Country as a result of 9-11. "fully endorsed"'....again......NO credibility what-so-ever....basically cosmetic candy.
'credibility' is a PEER REVIEW of the scientific data!
....not fellow cronies agreeing.
You need to actually show this by, for example, running your own FEA analysis to challenge NIST's results.
no problem, PEER REVIEW is about replication of a process to see if one gets the SAME results.....now when they release the 68,000+ files of data variables that TELL their ONLY EVIDENCE of collapse models what to do and how to behave to SHOW the brand new never before seen physics phenomenon of "Low Temp Thermal Expansion" and HOW it completely removes the 105 vertical feet structural resistance, including all the continuous vertical support columns; 8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams; lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout; tens of thousands of bolts and welds; interior partitions; utilities; office contents, ALL globally removed BEFORE 1.74 seconds to allow UNIFIED acceleration EQUAL to g. @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s....as found by the 2005 NIST.......then we shall have a peer review....but not until.
Absence of evidence is not evidence Canty!
Honestly, I don't even know what to do with this. If you are unable to find footage of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC 7 then I really don't believe you are trying very hard.
uhm..the same thing you do with all replies.....lie.
quick, go see what the bunker sites have on this....cause there is NOTHING within the 10,000+ page NIST report that supports falling tower damage hitting 7 to caused structural failure.......probably the BOMBS Hess and Jennings reported huh!!!!
originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: cantonear1968
facts, you call posting video of 10 second shots of fire facts???...
I gave you almost 50 pages showing fires in WTC 7. You have quoted NIST's statement of fires beyond the windows hundreds of times, intimating there was little to no fire. The proof I offered refutes this. Please address it.
NCSTAR1A-3.2"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
Which does not address the specific information of multiple fires I have referenced for you
uhm....yes it does. the acceleration equal to gravity ....
And again. There are multiple shots of fire throughout the building. You first tried to ignore this by claiming "same shot, different angle". You are now trying to avoid this hand wave by claiming "Yes fire....spot fires". The pictures show multiple fires on multiple floors, as described in NIST for their Collapse Progression. Please address this.
the facade is a non load bearing, COSMETIC application...
I don't know what this is in reference to. I don't remember bringing up the facade nor making any claims about it's load bearing capabilities. And I don't know why you claim "there is NO fire" when I have given you 50 pages of fire which you are not addressing. I guess the hope is to keep pretending I didn't do this.
Which was the 2nd phase of a 3 part collapse sequence. The 1st stage was decidedly less than FFA. Which is the stage of columns buckling; not being blown apart.
and WITHIN a scientific contest....means SH*T unless it is PROVED.
What isn't proven? The dofferent stages of collapse? Please, if you have calculations disproving this I am happy to hear it. Wishing it away doesn't make it cease to exist.
remember this video.....
Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing
"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
where he claims the phases YOU describe are a BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN PHYSICS phenomenon..
I'm sorry, but do you really believe Dr. Sunder was referring to thermal expansion as a "new phenomenon"? As if he never had heard of it? Try reading his comments in context. He was referring to this leading to a building collapse. That's what was new. And to date this conclusion is unchallenged.
bunker.... to have it magically FLOAT
When did I say this? Please expand.
Opinion, not facts. As NIST stated in their FAQ released 9/17/2010:
funny how you can ONLY point to either a, FAQ, cover sheet, or a preface page..
I pointed you to 80 pages within the NIST Report showing multiple fires on multiple floors, yet you pretended this didn't happen nor it exists. I guess it doesn't matter what I quote for you if you aren't going to read it.
PEER REVIEWED!
The NFPA
The ICC
Just 2 of the engineering agencies who REVIEWED the NIST Report and "Fully endorse" it. Your denials are running hollow as usual.
POST THE SCIENCE!
NCSTAR 1-9
Still unrefuted.
The NIST WTC Reports have been in the public domain for 6 years and have been reviewed by multiple engineering companies.
the 2005 NIST report is from 200 volunteers whom did NOT find a scientific reason for collapse
Bold assertion not backed up by facts.
"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
Why are you switching to WTC Towers when we are speaking about WTC 7? No matter. Here's the rest of the paragraph:
"Thus,the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot,give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns."
Same reference.
no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99
Who said it was?
recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133
Who said they weren't?
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2
What do temperatures of the core columns have to do with the collapse mechanism of the Towers?
NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"
Uh huh.
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
If you're going to quote NIST you could quote their reasons for not doing so.
how does one replicate, which is what PEER REVIEW is, when there is NO DATA to replicate???????
No Bob. There is no requirement of the reviewer to "replicate" a paper's procedures and data. That is ridiculous and an indication you don't know what you are talking about. The reviewer analyzes the paper to make sure proper procedures were followed. It is up to the challenger to run tests to verify or refute the conclusions.
Get to that.
there is NO physical evidence supporting this NEW SCIENCE..
Video, audio, witness testimony, computer modelling.
All evidence.
They are used for current guidelines in building construction [ARUP Group] and have been "fully endorsed" by respected organizations such as the NFPA and The ICC.
current guidelines....lol.....there have been NO code changed in THIS Country as a result of 9-11.
I will reference this later. But the ARUP Group, who built the CCTV Buolding in Beijing which burned, credit the NIST WTC Reports for their new guidelines in building construction.
"fully endorsed"'....again......NO credibility what-so-ever....basically cosmetic candy.
Fully endorsed. You are not addressing this. Just pretending it doesn't exist.
'credibility' is a PEER REVIEW of the scientific data!
....not fellow cronies agreeing.
Bold assertion not based in fact. You ask for peer review, get it, then dismiss it as "cronyism".
Simple hand waving against inconvenient facts.
You need to actually show this by, for example, running your own FEA analysis to challenge NIST's results.
no problem, PEER REVIEW is about replication of a process to see if one gets the SAME results
Again, wrong. Explained above. You as the challenger need to run your own FEA to refute or validate the NIST conclusions. Until you do this you are simply hand waving inconvenient facts.
Absence of evidence is not evidence Canty!
I couldn't agree more. Which is why I have quoted from an engineering report that enjoys the full support of the engineering community. You have.......
What exactly?
a reply to: cantonear1968
the 2005 NIST had access to 50,000 pics and 150 hours worth of video....and they still conclude as a SCIENTIFIC FINDING...
where is the fire on EVERY collapse video coming out of every window...non existent.
I quote the NIST statement because 'the window' is where they measured the FOUND ...
'global' = symmetrical; encompassing ALL....
'unified' = moving as a single unit; moving as one....
...acceleration equal to g., of the entire building; moving as ONE for 105 vertical feet for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.
....measured from the facade that is attached to the perimeter LOAD BEARING vertical support.
so.....WHAT removed that resistance GLOBALLY if not fire?
you ignore all this and pick the most insignificant direction to go focusing on out-of-context' wording.....there are names for people like that ......if we were conversing on utube, I would post it, as I have....haven't I...
I don't have to wish, lol... YOU are doing enough wishing for all bunkers.
bunker....gravitational acceleration of a steel framed building is an event, NOT a 'phase' you can add time to on paper so it doesn't occur...lmao!!
again, further proving to ALL, your misleading intent.....why do you leave off those FIRST two words???
Low Temp Thermal Expansion.....now, you can say this another way ....thermal expansion that occurs at low temps.
...lmao.....probably cause of finding NO f/n evidence of actual failed WTC steel from these FIRES PRESENT.
do you really want me to repeat myself this entire time we converse.......cause I will if if you are gonna continue focusing on OUT of context wording
so I suggest YOU get some physic on and get yerself some peer reviewed evidence, [oops, can't do that till they release it huh]....
when I make a claim I support it with a link.
why do none of your have direct links to anything you spew?
"NCSTAR 1-9
Still unrefuted."....no dude...section and volume.
WHERE???????
point out WHAT they learned.......don't buy American Steel????
you are just pulling stuff out of you know where bunker..........
I don't give two sh*ts whom "endources"....that means crap within a scientific context......where is the 'peer review' of this NEW phenomenon that fell WTC 7 equal to g. for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.....and tell me HOW it's done with NO available data to verify it with.
I gave you almost 50 pages showing fires in WTC 7. You have quoted NIST's statement of fires beyond the windows hundreds of times, intimating there was little to no fire. The proof I offered refutes this. Please address it. . And I don't know why you claim "there is NO fire"
the 2005 NIST had access to 50,000 pics and 150 hours worth of video....and they still conclude as a SCIENTIFIC FINDING...
NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
where is the fire on EVERY collapse video coming out of every window...non existent.
I quote the NIST statement because 'the window' is where they measured the FOUND ...
'global' = symmetrical; encompassing ALL....
'unified' = moving as a single unit; moving as one....
...acceleration equal to g., of the entire building; moving as ONE for 105 vertical feet for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.
NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."
NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"
....measured from the facade that is attached to the perimeter LOAD BEARING vertical support.
so.....WHAT removed that resistance GLOBALLY if not fire?
you ignore all this and pick the most insignificant direction to go focusing on out-of-context' wording.....there are names for people like that ......if we were conversing on utube, I would post it, as I have....haven't I...
What isn't proven? The dofferent stages of collapse? Please, if you have calculations disproving this I am happy to hear it. Wishing it away doesn't make it cease to exist.
I don't have to wish, lol... YOU are doing enough wishing for all bunkers.
bunker....gravitational acceleration of a steel framed building is an event, NOT a 'phase' you can add time to on paper so it doesn't occur...lmao!!
I'm sorry, but do you really believe Dr. Sunder was referring to thermal expansion as a "new phenomenon"? As if he never had heard of it?
again, further proving to ALL, your misleading intent.....why do you leave off those FIRST two words???
"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Low Temp Thermal Expansion.....now, you can say this another way ....thermal expansion that occurs at low temps.
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2
...lmao.....probably cause of finding NO f/n evidence of actual failed WTC steel from these FIRES PRESENT.
do you really want me to repeat myself this entire time we converse.......cause I will if if you are gonna continue focusing on OUT of context wording
so I suggest YOU get some physic on and get yerself some peer reviewed evidence, [oops, can't do that till they release it huh]....
The NFPA
The ICC
Just 2 of the engineering agencies who REVIEWED the NIST Report and "Fully endorse" it. Your denials are running hollow as usual.
when I make a claim I support it with a link.
why do none of your have direct links to anything you spew?
"NCSTAR 1-9
Still unrefuted."....no dude...section and volume.
credit the NIST WTC Reports for their new guidelines in building construction.
WHERE???????
point out WHAT they learned.......don't buy American Steel????
you are just pulling stuff out of you know where bunker..........
I don't give two sh*ts whom "endources"....that means crap within a scientific context......where is the 'peer review' of this NEW phenomenon that fell WTC 7 equal to g. for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.....and tell me HOW it's done with NO available data to verify it with.
Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899·
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
You have the right to appeal this determination. Such an appeal must be made in writing and received within 30 calendar days of the date on this letter addressed to:
Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office)
Room 5898-C
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230
edit on 7-7-2014 by hgfbob because: typo
a reply to: hgfbob
I have given you page references with 50 pages of fire. You keep avoiding this and trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
Uh huh. I have not denied this. Do you have a question in there?
Overloading of perimeter columns and Gravity.
You would know this of you actually read the report.
Are you referring to me constantly referencing the pages of fire you ask for? I don't know how that is changing direction.
I have no idea what this supposed to mean. NIST measured the global collapse of WTC 7 for the visible 18 floors as occuring in 5.4 secs. This was 40% longer than FFA. Due to a question by David Chandler they were able to break that 5.4 secs into 3 separate phases:
Phase 1: the outer facade dropped roughly 8 ft in 1.75 secs. This was the perimeter columns beginning to buckle under the increased weight load.
Phase 2: the perimeter columns buckled completely and the building dropped unrestrained for 105 ft at FFA. However, some of the data points actually show collapse at GREATER than FFA, meaning there were other mechanisms acting on the building other than just gravity.
Phase 3: the building impacts lower portions and the collapse is decidedly slower than FFA.
Total collapse time of these 3 phases is 40% GREATER than FFA. Exactly the same as before Chandler's question.
You didn't answer my question:
"do you really believe Dr. Sunder was referring to thermal expansion as a "new phenomenon"?"
Why is this earth shattering for you? Bridges are in danger of severe damage if not accounted for at only 35C. That WTC 7 experienced this at no less than 300C and possibly as high as 600C should not be terribly shocking for you.
Unless you have ACTUAL numbers to back up your incredulity. I await that.
You're quoting findings from the WTC Tower report. Please stay on topic. We are discussing WTC 7.
No steel evidence. But the expected temps of the area, and the effects on steel, are not a mystery and can be estimated fairly accurately.
Do you deny this?
It would be no different than any other time we conversed.
You state something
I prove it wrong
You leave for 2 days
You come back and repeat the same statement.
No different here.
We went over this. when I pointed out the review by peers of the NIST Report you called it cronyism. It's not my fault you want to move the goal posts when you are actually given what you want.
Well, I have given you page references for the fires in the NIST Report that you asked for and you ignored it. Why would I continue to give you something so you can pretend it doesn't exist.
However......NIST WTC Report. Comments section.
Then why do you keep going on about peer review if you don't care about it!!??
Very confusing.
How is your FEA analysis coming?
where is the fire
I have given you page references with 50 pages of fire. You keep avoiding this and trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
'global' = symmetrical; encompassing ALL....
'unified' = moving as a single unit; moving as one....
Uh huh. I have not denied this. Do you have a question in there?
so.....WHAT removed that resistance GLOBALLY if not fire?
Overloading of perimeter columns and Gravity.
You would know this of you actually read the report.
you ignore all this and pick the most insignificant direction to go focusing on out-of-context' wording
Are you referring to me constantly referencing the pages of fire you ask for? I don't know how that is changing direction.
gravitational acceleration of a steel framed building is an event, NOT a 'phase' you can add time to on paper so it doesn't occur
I have no idea what this supposed to mean. NIST measured the global collapse of WTC 7 for the visible 18 floors as occuring in 5.4 secs. This was 40% longer than FFA. Due to a question by David Chandler they were able to break that 5.4 secs into 3 separate phases:
Phase 1: the outer facade dropped roughly 8 ft in 1.75 secs. This was the perimeter columns beginning to buckle under the increased weight load.
Phase 2: the perimeter columns buckled completely and the building dropped unrestrained for 105 ft at FFA. However, some of the data points actually show collapse at GREATER than FFA, meaning there were other mechanisms acting on the building other than just gravity.
Phase 3: the building impacts lower portions and the collapse is decidedly slower than FFA.
Total collapse time of these 3 phases is 40% GREATER than FFA. Exactly the same as before Chandler's question.
again, further proving to ALL, your misleading intent.....why do you leave off those FIRST two words??
You didn't answer my question:
"do you really believe Dr. Sunder was referring to thermal expansion as a "new phenomenon"?"
Low Temp Thermal Expansion
Why is this earth shattering for you? Bridges are in danger of severe damage if not accounted for at only 35C. That WTC 7 experienced this at no less than 300C and possibly as high as 600C should not be terribly shocking for you.
Unless you have ACTUAL numbers to back up your incredulity. I await that.
"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2
You're quoting findings from the WTC Tower report. Please stay on topic. We are discussing WTC 7.
NO f/n evidence of actual failed WTC steel from these FIRES PRESENT.
No steel evidence. But the expected temps of the area, and the effects on steel, are not a mystery and can be estimated fairly accurately.
Do you deny this?
do you really want me to repeat myself this entire time we converse
It would be no different than any other time we conversed.
You state something
I prove it wrong
You leave for 2 days
You come back and repeat the same statement.
No different here.
so I suggest YOU get some physic on and get yerself some peer reviewed evidence,
We went over this. when I pointed out the review by peers of the NIST Report you called it cronyism. It's not my fault you want to move the goal posts when you are actually given what you want.
why do none of your have direct links to anything you spew?
Well, I have given you page references for the fires in the NIST Report that you asked for and you ignored it. Why would I continue to give you something so you can pretend it doesn't exist.
However......NIST WTC Report. Comments section.
I don't give two sh*ts whom "endources"
Then why do you keep going on about peer review if you don't care about it!!??
Very confusing.
and tell me HOW it's done with NO available data to verify it with.
How is your FEA analysis coming?
a reply to: cantonear1968
as I said, I have NO problem repeating what YOU ignore.
as I already answered this above.....for SOME reason ya don't get it.
why do you LIE, stating I said "NO fire" when I say the 2005 NIST SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION can't see the fire.....that must be there to do the work GLOBALLY!!!
and then ask YOU, since the acceleration EQUAL to g. was MEASURED off the FACADE where there is NO FIRE seen that is NEEDED to remove the RESISTANCE of the perimeter vertical support that is SUPPORTING the facade, [along with one end of EVERT roof truss]....WHAT does all the work of REMOVING resistance if NO FIRE IS SEEN?
so, are we gonna continue to ignore my post to misquote and come back with you responding with....[enter Gilligan's Island dream sequence music]....."NO FIRE, I gave you 12 pages of fire and you say there is none".
lol.....yea...tell me how fire we can't see from the windows achieves 105 vertical feet of acceleration equal to g. under those parameters...like the question says before you cherry-pick the first half.....[shakes head].
well...lol, the most important difference...building do not have highly flammable floors as bridges do..... MORON!!!!!
and yet these three collapses are EXCLUSIVE to only 9-11....never to be seen before or since, DESPITE greater initial damage and fires...but YOU are more than welcome to try...
all three were steered straight down through the path of most resistance. Natural collapses are chaotic events.....natural collapses are unpredictable.
Symmetry denotes CONTROL.
Chaos means a collapse that is not controlled, now how does one get a symmetrical collapse x3, with no resistance from chaos?
by 'controlling' it.
so unless YOU can show show me HOW there can be symmetry through a complete total collapse when there is resistance in the system, you have absolutely nothing.
no bunker, I said that about the ENDORSEMENTS....it's above. ... and I said, PROVIDE the so-called peer reviews of the NIST data variables that TELL their only supporting evidence what to do HOW to behave...
so is this gonna be the extent of your visit here.....making out-of-context wording to make your evidence, or attempt to slander me....lol ????
AGAIN......nothing from you but contradiction....where are your SUPPORTING LINKS??????
where are the PEER REVIEWS????
where is the EVIDENCE of the claims PUSHED as truth?????
you do know these threads are monitored for just the action YOU are being observed doing.
you offer nothing but taking PART of what I post and ignorantly posting back leaving out facts of what I post as an attempt to discredit the person, RATHER than the information being posted.....same old bunker tactics that have NOT worked for years.
lmao...again...perfect example of YOU taking two separate answers and making YOU OWN question just to attack me......taking my response of "ENDORSEMENTS" then attaching it to peer review!!!....priceless.
as soon as YOU link me to the 68,000+ files of DATA variables from the 2008 NIST hypothesis crews ONLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE concerning 9-11, the authors of the OFFICIAL CLAIMS pushed in order to PERFORM the peer review......I'll let ya know.
and don't say it's the NIST WTC7 report...there is NO reviewable data within that document...if YOU think so, then DIRECT LINK TO IT!
as I said, I have NO problem repeating what YOU ignore.
I have given you page references with 50 pages of fire. You keep avoiding this and trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
as I already answered this above.....for SOME reason ya don't get it.
why do you LIE, stating I said "NO fire" when I say the 2005 NIST SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION can't see the fire.....that must be there to do the work GLOBALLY!!!
NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
and then ask YOU, since the acceleration EQUAL to g. was MEASURED off the FACADE where there is NO FIRE seen that is NEEDED to remove the RESISTANCE of the perimeter vertical support that is SUPPORTING the facade, [along with one end of EVERT roof truss]....WHAT does all the work of REMOVING resistance if NO FIRE IS SEEN?
so, are we gonna continue to ignore my post to misquote and come back with you responding with....[enter Gilligan's Island dream sequence music]....."NO FIRE, I gave you 12 pages of fire and you say there is none".
Uh huh. I have not denied this. Do you have a question in there?
lol.....yea...tell me how fire we can't see from the windows achieves 105 vertical feet of acceleration equal to g. under those parameters...like the question says before you cherry-pick the first half.....[shakes head].
Bridges are in danger
well...lol, the most important difference...building do not have highly flammable floors as bridges do..... MORON!!!!!
But the expected temps of the area, and the effects on steel, are not a mystery and can be estimated fairly accurately.
and yet these three collapses are EXCLUSIVE to only 9-11....never to be seen before or since, DESPITE greater initial damage and fires...but YOU are more than welcome to try...
all three were steered straight down through the path of most resistance. Natural collapses are chaotic events.....natural collapses are unpredictable.
Symmetry denotes CONTROL.
Chaos means a collapse that is not controlled, now how does one get a symmetrical collapse x3, with no resistance from chaos?
by 'controlling' it.
so unless YOU can show show me HOW there can be symmetry through a complete total collapse when there is resistance in the system, you have absolutely nothing.
when I pointed out the review by peers of the NIST Report you called it cronyism.
no bunker, I said that about the ENDORSEMENTS....it's above. ... and I said, PROVIDE the so-called peer reviews of the NIST data variables that TELL their only supporting evidence what to do HOW to behave...
so is this gonna be the extent of your visit here.....making out-of-context wording to make your evidence, or attempt to slander me....lol ????
AGAIN......nothing from you but contradiction....where are your SUPPORTING LINKS??????
where are the PEER REVIEWS????
where is the EVIDENCE of the claims PUSHED as truth?????
you do know these threads are monitored for just the action YOU are being observed doing.
you offer nothing but taking PART of what I post and ignorantly posting back leaving out facts of what I post as an attempt to discredit the person, RATHER than the information being posted.....same old bunker tactics that have NOT worked for years.
I don't give two sh*ts whom "endources"
Then why do you keep going on about peer review if you don't care about it!!??
Very confusing.
lmao...again...perfect example of YOU taking two separate answers and making YOU OWN question just to attack me......taking my response of "ENDORSEMENTS" then attaching it to peer review!!!....priceless.
How is your FEA analysis coming?
as soon as YOU link me to the 68,000+ files of DATA variables from the 2008 NIST hypothesis crews ONLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE concerning 9-11, the authors of the OFFICIAL CLAIMS pushed in order to PERFORM the peer review......I'll let ya know.
and don't say it's the NIST WTC7 report...there is NO reviewable data within that document...if YOU think so, then DIRECT LINK TO IT!
a reply to: hgfbob
Funny. I've addressed everything you've written.
But try a larger font. Maybe that'll make it true.
Which deceptive quote mining is irrelevant to the 50 pages of fire I have given you. Try addressing this instead of offering 2 different excuses and pretending it doesn't exist.
What does this matter? If the lower portion buckles the upper facade, which is what was measured, will follow!
This should be obvious.
I've answered this: overloading of columns and gravity. And try looking at the reference I gave you and you will finally see the fire you are looking for.
How am I misquoting you about NO FIRE when you continue to write NO FIRE!!??
I'm getting the impression you don't read what you write.
It didn't. No one claims it did. This has been explained to you numerous times. If you have something stating differently now would be the time to post it.
This is total nonsense to avoid addressing my point that bridges are in danger of significant damage from thermal expansion at low temperatures. Bring it back to that which is what we were discussing.
And bridges burn but buildings don't? Are you for real?
And what else was EXCLUSIVE to 9/11 Bob? There were a couple other OBVIOUS differences compared to other building fires!
Please reference this. What other buildings suffered greater damage than 2 planes and debris from a 250,000 ton building? And had 10,000 gals of jet fuel to ignite on multiple floors OR flaming debris that started multiple fires on multiple floors and were left to burn unfought?
I'll wait.
Where do you think they should have gone? Explain why.
All 3 were.
WTCs 1 & 2 were not symmetrical. WTC 7 suffered an internal collapse before global collapse. Also chaotic,
There wasn't. Next question.
I'm not letting you get away with rewording things to suit your purpose. As I have pointed out multiple times now the NIST WTC Reports have been reviewed by multiple agencies and enjoy the full endorsement from respected agencies such as the NFPA and the ICC. There is no controversy over the reports in the engineering community. I've given you exactly what you have asked for yet you continue to deny this.
Par for the course.
NIST WTC Report Comments and Reviews section. Gave that to you already.
The peer review came before the endorsement. This was explained to you. And yes I will use your own words to show the weakness of your argument.
How's your FEA analysis coming?
as I said, I have NO problem repeating what YOU ignore.
Funny. I've addressed everything you've written.
But try a larger font. Maybe that'll make it true.
when I say the 2005 NIST SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION can't see the fire
Which deceptive quote mining is irrelevant to the 50 pages of fire I have given you. Try addressing this instead of offering 2 different excuses and pretending it doesn't exist.
was MEASURED off the FACADE where there is NO FIRE
What does this matter? If the lower portion buckles the upper facade, which is what was measured, will follow!
This should be obvious.
WHAT does all the work of REMOVING resistance if NO FIRE IS SEEN?
I've answered this: overloading of columns and gravity. And try looking at the reference I gave you and you will finally see the fire you are looking for.
so, are we gonna continue to ignore my post to misquote
How am I misquoting you about NO FIRE when you continue to write NO FIRE!!??
I'm getting the impression you don't read what you write.
tell me how fire we can't see from the windows achieves 105 vertical feet of acceleration equal to g
It didn't. No one claims it did. This has been explained to you numerous times. If you have something stating differently now would be the time to post it.
lol, the most important difference...building do not have highly flammable floors as bridges do
This is total nonsense to avoid addressing my point that bridges are in danger of significant damage from thermal expansion at low temperatures. Bring it back to that which is what we were discussing.
And bridges burn but buildings don't? Are you for real?
and yet these three collapses are EXCLUSIVE to only 9-11
And what else was EXCLUSIVE to 9/11 Bob? There were a couple other OBVIOUS differences compared to other building fires!
DESPITE greater initial damage and fires
Please reference this. What other buildings suffered greater damage than 2 planes and debris from a 250,000 ton building? And had 10,000 gals of jet fuel to ignite on multiple floors OR flaming debris that started multiple fires on multiple floors and were left to burn unfought?
I'll wait.
all three were steered straight down through the path of most resistance
Where do you think they should have gone? Explain why.
Natural collapses are chaotic events
All 3 were.
Symmetry denotes CONTROL
WTCs 1 & 2 were not symmetrical. WTC 7 suffered an internal collapse before global collapse. Also chaotic,
so unless YOU can show show me HOW there can be symmetry
There wasn't. Next question.
making out-of-context wording
I'm not letting you get away with rewording things to suit your purpose. As I have pointed out multiple times now the NIST WTC Reports have been reviewed by multiple agencies and enjoy the full endorsement from respected agencies such as the NFPA and the ICC. There is no controversy over the reports in the engineering community. I've given you exactly what you have asked for yet you continue to deny this.
Par for the course.
where are the PEER REVIEWS????
NIST WTC Report Comments and Reviews section. Gave that to you already.
taking my response of "ENDORSEMENTS" then attaching it to peer review!!
The peer review came before the endorsement. This was explained to you. And yes I will use your own words to show the weakness of your argument.
as soon as YOU link me to the 68,000+ files of DATA variables from the 2008 NIST hypothesis
How's your FEA analysis coming?
a reply to: cantonear1968
lmao....deny and contradict....
where are the supporting LINKS to back ANYTHING you just posted???
non existent......
nor am I gonna respond to your misquoting, I will just repeat this in it's entirety.....
tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds.
Structural resistance consisting of 105 vertical feet of continuous steel load bearing support columns; at least 8 COMPLETE floors of truss assemblies WITH carrier beams; tens of thousands of bolts and welds; cross, lateral, and diagonal bracing throughout those 8 floors; interior partitions; office contents; utilities;.....ALL structural resistance that is NOT THERE to allow global unified acceleration EQUAL to g.
...as found by the 2005 NIST scientific investigation.
go open the WTC7 NIST report to Fig 3-15 Canty.....that shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. .....can ya SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval of collapse where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.
now Canty....what does ALL known taught SCIENCE say about the 2.3 seconds "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL"....that NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, because ALL has converted to MOTION!
meaning that any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.
that is what ALL taught science demands occurs to ALLOW what we see...you think differ...post a LINK to a REPUTABLE site and PROVE IT!!
but ALL our science says the same thing.....EVEN ON 9-11.
hey Canty......how bout ya tell me where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers as seen in that GLOBAL UNIFIED rate of acceleration @ 9.8m/s^2????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.
hmm Canty.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.
NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...
yet for SOME reason after STALLING for three years the 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire not only did caused collapse, but as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
2008 NIST Technical Briefing
ya don't have to watch the video, you can read the PDF transcript of the video....that quote is on page 34.
oh yea, another note is that this video comes from in between the rough draft , [where there is NO mention of the found acceleration equal to g.], and the final report where they do mention it, however IGNORING it to continue with their original BULL#.....seems this tech briefing is them TRYING to PUSH their brand new never before seen physics that ONLY occurred on 9-11.....
there is NO denying this Canty....they are ON VIDEO!!!!!
Shyam is even SUPPORTING ALL the science fundamentals I just posted above when he ATTEMPTS to make fun of the High School Physics teacher......on page 16 Shyam says...
gee, EXACTLY what I just stated above....
hey Canty....care to venture a guess why the NIST REMOVED this webcast Tech Briefing from their website?????
SO..seems the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
*ONE*, that will show them the fraud they are, and *TWO*,because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.
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
'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."
lmao....deny and contradict....
where are the supporting LINKS to back ANYTHING you just posted???
non existent......
nor am I gonna respond to your misquoting, I will just repeat this in it's entirety.....
tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds.
Structural resistance consisting of 105 vertical feet of continuous steel load bearing support columns; at least 8 COMPLETE floors of truss assemblies WITH carrier beams; tens of thousands of bolts and welds; cross, lateral, and diagonal bracing throughout those 8 floors; interior partitions; office contents; utilities;.....ALL structural resistance that is NOT THERE to allow global unified acceleration EQUAL to g.
...as found by the 2005 NIST scientific investigation.
NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."
NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"
NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
go open the WTC7 NIST report to Fig 3-15 Canty.....that shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. .....can ya SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval of collapse where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.
now Canty....what does ALL known taught SCIENCE say about the 2.3 seconds "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL"....that NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, because ALL has converted to MOTION!
meaning that any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.
that is what ALL taught science demands occurs to ALLOW what we see...you think differ...post a LINK to a REPUTABLE site and PROVE IT!!
but ALL our science says the same thing.....EVEN ON 9-11.
hey Canty......how bout ya tell me where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers as seen in that GLOBAL UNIFIED rate of acceleration @ 9.8m/s^2????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.
hmm Canty.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.
NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...
"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"
"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
yet for SOME reason after STALLING for three years the 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire not only did caused collapse, but as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
2008 NIST Technical Briefing
"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
ya don't have to watch the video, you can read the PDF transcript of the video....that quote is on page 34.
oh yea, another note is that this video comes from in between the rough draft , [where there is NO mention of the found acceleration equal to g.], and the final report where they do mention it, however IGNORING it to continue with their original BULL#.....seems this tech briefing is them TRYING to PUSH their brand new never before seen physics that ONLY occurred on 9-11.....
there is NO denying this Canty....they are ON VIDEO!!!!!
Shyam is even SUPPORTING ALL the science fundamentals I just posted above when he ATTEMPTS to make fun of the High School Physics teacher......on page 16 Shyam says...
"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"
gee, EXACTLY what I just stated above....
hey Canty....care to venture a guess why the NIST REMOVED this webcast Tech Briefing from their website?????
SO..seems the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
*ONE*, that will show them the fraud they are, and *TWO*,because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.
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
'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."
a reply to: hgfbob
What, of anything I said, required a link? I don't need links when you're simply incorrect on everything.
For example:
As I keep telling you, no one claims this. No report states fire removed the supporting columns which resulted in FFA. I don't need a link for your erroneous claim. As I keep asking, if you have a link supporting this claim, now is the time to post it.
Your silence on this question is rather obvious.
As shown to you by NIST's FAQ, they put the WTC 7 report on hold while they finished the Towers Report. This has been referenced for you. You're simply repeating falsehoods.
Why? There isn't anything in that statement I disagree with. As has been told to you, thermal expansion can be damaging to a structure [bridge] at as little as 35C if there is no gapping to account for this expansion.
Right. And when put into the context of what he was talking about, which was the global collapse of WTC 7, which collapsed at 40% longer than FFA, his statement is completely accurate.
You do agree with this right? That the visible global collapse of WTC 7, measured over 18 floors, was 40% longer than FFA? If not, please show your work.
How's your FEA analysis coming?
where are the supporting LINKS to back ANYTHING you just posted???
What, of anything I said, required a link? I don't need links when you're simply incorrect on everything.
For example:
tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7...blah, blah, blah
As I keep telling you, no one claims this. No report states fire removed the supporting columns which resulted in FFA. I don't need a link for your erroneous claim. As I keep asking, if you have a link supporting this claim, now is the time to post it.
Your silence on this question is rather obvious.
yet for SOME reason after STALLING for three years
As shown to you by NIST's FAQ, they put the WTC 7 report on hold while they finished the Towers Report. This has been referenced for you. You're simply repeating falsehoods.
ya don't have to watch the video, you can read the PDF transcript of the video....that quote is on page 34.
Why? There isn't anything in that statement I disagree with. As has been told to you, thermal expansion can be damaging to a structure [bridge] at as little as 35C if there is no gapping to account for this expansion.
"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"
Right. And when put into the context of what he was talking about, which was the global collapse of WTC 7, which collapsed at 40% longer than FFA, his statement is completely accurate.
You do agree with this right? That the visible global collapse of WTC 7, measured over 18 floors, was 40% longer than FFA? If not, please show your work.
NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file.....
How's your FEA analysis coming?
edit on 2014-07-08T14:46:45-05:00pm73120147America/ChicagopmTue, 08 Jul 2014 14:46:45 -05001 by cantonear1968
because: spelling
a reply to: cantonear1968
good....then support the claimed NEW physics of LOW TEMP thermal expansion, as is the claim....the authors refuse....
and you still seem to forget the OTHER two words when replying back to me....to COMPLETE the claim they actually said....LOW TEMP thermal expansion.....
thermal expansion that occurred at LOW TEMPS!!!
Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing
why do they refuse to prove the OFFICIAL CLAIM that fell WTC7???
"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."
peer review is about verification.....point to the verification of this NEW physics that only occurred on 9-11...
There isn't anything in that statement I disagree with. As has been told to you, thermal expansion can be damaging to a structure
good....then support the claimed NEW physics of LOW TEMP thermal expansion, as is the claim....the authors refuse....
and you still seem to forget the OTHER two words when replying back to me....to COMPLETE the claim they actually said....LOW TEMP thermal expansion.....
thermal expansion that occurred at LOW TEMPS!!!
"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 2008 NIST technical briefing
why do they refuse to prove the OFFICIAL CLAIM that fell WTC7???
"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."
peer review is about verification.....point to the verification of this NEW physics that only occurred on 9-11...
a reply to: hgfbob
No. You added that.
And why do you find this wrong? Be specific.
How is your FEA analysis coming?
Why do you keep avoiding this question?
then support the claimed NEW physics
No. You added that.
thermal expansion that occurred at LOW TEMPS!!!
And why do you find this wrong? Be specific.
"NIST is withholding 68,246 files....
How is your FEA analysis coming?
Why do you keep avoiding this question?
a reply to: cantonear1968
already did precious......
can't dumb it down any further for ya.....I suggest getting your money back and starting over with a better school.
hey, [one last chance....], can you tell me the difference between a natural gravitational building collapse, and that same collapse ACCELERATING globally and unified equal to g.???
ONE needs a CLEAR PATH in order to occur...the other doesn't....care to guess which one occurred for 105 vertical feet for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse of WTC7?
ALL science demands the only way structural mass can accelerate equal to g. is with a clear path BENEATH the mass accelerating....
tell me how fire we can't see from the windows does this before 1.74 second of the collapse of WTC7......as ALL science states it must.......[well, that is, EXCEPT for the 2008 NIST claim, a FIRST TIME NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon.
2005 NIST could not find a scientific reason why......they didn't think of this NEW science.....
2008 NIST claims NEW science.
WHEN ya gonna tell me all about this.....quit stalling.......Can't, this is not like utube where your posting fades into obscurity....your reply is here for ALL to see forever!!!
lol......me.......as soon as YOU supply the data variables that tell their ONLY supporting evidence what to do, HOW to behave, which, [for SOME reason], they REFUSE to release in order to PEER REVIEW, verify, validate, replicate their experiments in order to get the SAME results as them......then we shall see....can't happen until then bunker
I asked you for a peer review OUTSIDE the authors supporting this claim, YOU say is there.....where is it?
does your reluctance to post one mean there is NONE supporting that claim....oh say it isn't so.....
that's the Dictum of both Law and Debate, those whom ASSERT, MUST prove...
first come the asserted official claims PUSHED...
now I am demanding the supporting evidence.
so WHERE is it.
And why do you find this wrong? Be specific.
already did precious......
can't dumb it down any further for ya.....I suggest getting your money back and starting over with a better school.
hey, [one last chance....], can you tell me the difference between a natural gravitational building collapse, and that same collapse ACCELERATING globally and unified equal to g.???
ONE needs a CLEAR PATH in order to occur...the other doesn't....care to guess which one occurred for 105 vertical feet for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse of WTC7?
ALL science demands the only way structural mass can accelerate equal to g. is with a clear path BENEATH the mass accelerating....
tell me how fire we can't see from the windows does this before 1.74 second of the collapse of WTC7......as ALL science states it must.......[well, that is, EXCEPT for the 2008 NIST claim, a FIRST TIME NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon.
2005 NIST could not find a scientific reason why......they didn't think of this NEW science.....
2008 NIST claims NEW science.
"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
WHEN ya gonna tell me all about this.....quit stalling.......Can't, this is not like utube where your posting fades into obscurity....your reply is here for ALL to see forever!!!
How is your FEA analysis coming?
Why do you keep avoiding this question?
lol......me.......as soon as YOU supply the data variables that tell their ONLY supporting evidence what to do, HOW to behave, which, [for SOME reason], they REFUSE to release in order to PEER REVIEW, verify, validate, replicate their experiments in order to get the SAME results as them......then we shall see....can't happen until then bunker
I asked you for a peer review OUTSIDE the authors supporting this claim, YOU say is there.....where is it?
does your reluctance to post one mean there is NONE supporting that claim....oh say it isn't so.....
that's the Dictum of both Law and Debate, those whom ASSERT, MUST prove...
first come the asserted official claims PUSHED...
now I am demanding the supporting evidence.
so WHERE is it.
edit on 9-7-2014 by hgfbob because: typo
a reply to: hgfbob
Where? I'm pretty sure quoting something with an incredulous point is not explaining anything.
Please explain why the steel could not thermally expand to the point of failure in "Low Temperatures" given by NIST.
Show your work.
Tell you the difference? I really don't understand this nonsensical question. Properly worded, why did WTC 7 collapse at FFA? Ok:
Simplified; with the expansion of girder W33, it walked off its connection to Column 79, collapsed and caused cascading failure down to Floor 5, leaving column 79 unsupported laterally for 8 floors. Column 79 buckled due to this lack of support, which resulted in an internal collapse from east to west. This left WTC 7 with no internal supports for 8 floors, the outer perimeter column buckled under the strain and failed, causing a FFA for 8 floors as most if not all resistance was gone.
I know this isn't the first time you have seen this as I have explained it to you dozens of times. As I said:
Wash
Rinse
Repeat.
50 pages of fire we can see which you refuse to acknowledge.
Explained above.
Explained above (as well as numerous times before).
Not needed. I'm not asking you to run NIST's simulations. That's silly. I'm asking you to run your own since you are the one questioning the results. It's called the scientific method. I don't want a recreation of NIST's conclusions, I'm asking you to either prove or refute them.
So.....How is your FEA analysis coming?
I'm pretty sure all of these are breaches of your Membership Agreement. Do not continue to name call OR change my user name as all are bannable offenses. As you like to point out, this isn't YouTube.
already did precious......
Where? I'm pretty sure quoting something with an incredulous point is not explaining anything.
Please explain why the steel could not thermally expand to the point of failure in "Low Temperatures" given by NIST.
Show your work.
can you tell me the difference between a natural gravitational building collapse, and that same collapse ACCELERATING globally and unified equal to g.???
Tell you the difference? I really don't understand this nonsensical question. Properly worded, why did WTC 7 collapse at FFA? Ok:
Simplified; with the expansion of girder W33, it walked off its connection to Column 79, collapsed and caused cascading failure down to Floor 5, leaving column 79 unsupported laterally for 8 floors. Column 79 buckled due to this lack of support, which resulted in an internal collapse from east to west. This left WTC 7 with no internal supports for 8 floors, the outer perimeter column buckled under the strain and failed, causing a FFA for 8 floors as most if not all resistance was gone.
I know this isn't the first time you have seen this as I have explained it to you dozens of times. As I said:
Wash
Rinse
Repeat.
tell me how fire we can't see from the windows....
50 pages of fire we can see which you refuse to acknowledge.
...does this...
Explained above.
WHEN ya gonna tell me all about this.....quit stalling
Explained above (as well as numerous times before).
as soon as YOU supply the data variables
Not needed. I'm not asking you to run NIST's simulations. That's silly. I'm asking you to run your own since you are the one questioning the results. It's called the scientific method. I don't want a recreation of NIST's conclusions, I'm asking you to either prove or refute them.
So.....How is your FEA analysis coming?
Can't
Canty
precious
bunker
MORON
I'm pretty sure all of these are breaches of your Membership Agreement. Do not continue to name call OR change my user name as all are bannable offenses. As you like to point out, this isn't YouTube.
a reply to: cantonear1968
well...too bad for you that is how it is done.........I have NO official claims consisting SOLELY of computer models predicting a NEW physics phenomenon that only occurred on 9-11 which is pushed as truth as the reason why these three buildings fell on 9-11....
you do...
Shyam Sunder 2008 NIST technical briefing
now tell me why they refuse to release the data that tells the models what to do, how to behave??
Not needed. I'm not asking you to run NIST's simulations.
well...too bad for you that is how it is done.........I have NO official claims consisting SOLELY of computer models predicting a NEW physics phenomenon that only occurred on 9-11 which is pushed as truth as the reason why these three buildings fell on 9-11....
you do...
"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 2008 NIST technical briefing
now tell me why they refuse to release the data that tells the models what to do, how to behave??
"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."
a reply to: JuniorDisco
is this the ONLY defense the official story pushers can come up with???
...leaving off two words which change the meaning......why do you leave off the words LOW TEMP???
that is in the claim I post, but EVERY reply back from you people follows the same scenario, leave out the IMPOSSIBLE part, [low temp], to throw back the known part, [thermal expansion].
all at an attempt at discrediting me?...for showing it...
guess ya never thought of supporting the official claims pushed as truth.....
how many months have I been here and not one of you has posted, showing anything different than what I said.....you all reply back with the same 'misquotes'.....
so again, tell me all about this NEW phenomenon that works at LOW TEMPS to remove the necessary resistance for the 105 vertical feet of global unified acceleration equal to g. for 1/3 of the 6.5 second collapse of WTC7....which the earlier 2005 NIST scientific investigation found occurred.
can ya guess why the NIST removed this video off their website!!!!!!!
You do realise that you're just about the only person in the world that hasn't heard of thermal expansion?
is this the ONLY defense the official story pushers can come up with???
...leaving off two words which change the meaning......why do you leave off the words LOW TEMP???
that is in the claim I post, but EVERY reply back from you people follows the same scenario, leave out the IMPOSSIBLE part, [low temp], to throw back the known part, [thermal expansion].
all at an attempt at discrediting me?...for showing it...
guess ya never thought of supporting the official claims pushed as truth.....
how many months have I been here and not one of you has posted, showing anything different than what I said.....you all reply back with the same 'misquotes'.....
so again, tell me all about this NEW phenomenon that works at LOW TEMPS to remove the necessary resistance for the 105 vertical feet of global unified acceleration equal to g. for 1/3 of the 6.5 second collapse of WTC7....which the earlier 2005 NIST scientific investigation found occurred.
can ya guess why the NIST removed this video off their website!!!!!!!
a reply to: hgfbob
I actually can't believe that your entire premise is based on such an obvious misreading of what Sunder says. The meaning and grammar are so simple and your error so palpable that it'd really quite extraordinary.
He isn't claiming a new type of thermal expansion that occurs at lower temperatures than normal thermal expansion. He is saying - in line with established science - that thermal expansion takes place at relatively low temperatures. It's astonishingly simple.
This is why bridges have expansion joints. It's nothing to do with them catching fire - it's because they expand at low temperatures.
I actually can't believe that your entire premise is based on such an obvious misreading of what Sunder says. The meaning and grammar are so simple and your error so palpable that it'd really quite extraordinary.
He isn't claiming a new type of thermal expansion that occurs at lower temperatures than normal thermal expansion. He is saying - in line with established science - that thermal expansion takes place at relatively low temperatures. It's astonishingly simple.
This is why bridges have expansion joints. It's nothing to do with them catching fire - it's because they expand at low temperatures.
new topics
-
Pelosi injured in Luxembourg
Other Current Events: 1 hours ago -
Nov 2024 - Former President Barack Hussein Obama Has Lost His Aura.
US Political Madness: 3 hours ago -
Something better
Dissecting Disinformation: 8 hours ago -
The Witcher IV — Cinematic Reveal Trailer | The Game Awards 2024
Video Games: 11 hours ago -
Friday thoughts
General Chit Chat: 11 hours ago -
More Ons?
Political Conspiracies: 11 hours ago -
Canada Post strike ended by the Government of Canada
Mainstream News: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
They Know
Aliens and UFOs: 16 hours ago, 18 flags -
Something better
Dissecting Disinformation: 8 hours ago, 8 flags -
Nov 2024 - Former President Barack Hussein Obama Has Lost His Aura.
US Political Madness: 3 hours ago, 7 flags -
Pelosi injured in Luxembourg
Other Current Events: 1 hours ago, 7 flags -
More Ons?
Political Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 6 flags -
Friday thoughts
General Chit Chat: 11 hours ago, 5 flags -
Canada Post strike ended by the Government of Canada
Mainstream News: 11 hours ago, 4 flags -
The Witcher IV — Cinematic Reveal Trailer | The Game Awards 2024
Video Games: 11 hours ago, 3 flags -
Drones (QUESTION) TERMINATOR (QUESTION)
General Chit Chat: 17 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Drones (QUESTION) TERMINATOR (QUESTION)
General Chit Chat • 11 • : Cavemannick -
Alien warfare predicted for December 3 2024
Aliens and UFOs • 115 • : WeMustCare -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3670 • : duncanagain -
Pelosi injured in Luxembourg
Other Current Events • 12 • : WeMustCare -
They Know
Aliens and UFOs • 66 • : Springbok -
A Bunch of Maybe Drones Just Flew Across Hillsborough County
Aircraft Projects • 70 • : WeMustCare -
Biden pardons 39 and commutes 1500 sentences…
Mainstream News • 28 • : charlyv -
The Witcher IV — Cinematic Reveal Trailer | The Game Awards 2024
Video Games • 5 • : Hypntick -
Nov 2024 - Former President Barack Hussein Obama Has Lost His Aura.
US Political Madness • 11 • : WeMustCare -
Something better
Dissecting Disinformation • 14 • : chr0naut