I found the missing Jolt.

DGM said:
This makes you a hypocrite. You accuse people of conspiracy and never back it up (with more than your own authority). Worse still, you are too much of a coward to name who you are accusing.
Click to expand...

Really. I very often provide the math behind what I am saying. I never see you do it. The only thing you seem to be good at here is snide remarks with no basis.

I am saying anyone involved with the NIST reports needs to do what they can to revise them and if they don't they are guilty of misleading the public.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
This is an on-ramp on the Bay Bridge on the San Francisco side. A tanker truck crashed and burned, the fire caused a reinforced steel and concrete structure to collapse. Unlike the WTC complex, this bridge was designed to survive a 6.0 earthquake, and unlike the WTC complex the construction codes were stiff.

...and yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxyIECIEp0

Fire weakens steel and concrete. This fire didn't burn half as long as WTC7.
Click to expand...

Yes, fire can weaken steel if there is enough energy involved. There usually isn't in office fires.

The interesting thing about that overpass collapse is that it did not break through the highway section it fell on. Did you forget about that?
 
jaydeehess said:
Ahem,,,,

AE911T is quite welcome to do its own fire spread and intensity program(tower 1, 2 or 7). NIST used an off the shelf program, you can too. Chris Sarns used ,,,, imagination.

How's that going? You guys have been kvetching about the veracity of NIST's temp/time study for a decade now and yet the only thing you've got to counter it is a series of drawings done by a carpenter. You don't have any actual fire engineering specialists in AE911T?
Click to expand...

I guess we've moved beyond fire spread and intensity, just as we seem to have moved on from the large number of hush-a-booms in WTC 7
 
Tale said:
How many stories of overpass was it?
Click to expand...

Don't question the fantasy that steel can't fail in fire - then the Gish Gallop the road below did not fail. He has no logic, no evidence, no repeatable theory.

He knows it was CD, but has no clue who did it, or how it was done... but he knows it was CD.
 
Tale said:
How many stories of overpass was it?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you don't realize I am comparing it to the one northeast corner floor section at the 13th floor in WTC 7 that NIST said fell onto the one below and caused an eight story cascade.

The report provides no analysis to back up this assertion and it is now proven to be bogus as the science and math show the falling beam and girder assembly can't generate the dynamic load required to shear the girder connection to column 79 of the floor below. The highway situation provides some empirical back up that it can't happen the way they say. The NIST WTC 7 report is fraudulent.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It sounds like you don't realize I am comparing it to the one northeast corner floor section at the 13th floor in WTC 7 that NIST said fell onto the one below and caused an eight story cascade.
Click to expand...

How much debris had fallen onto and damaged the highway prior to the overpasses collapse?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Really. I very often provide the math behind what I am saying. I never see you do it. The only thing you seem to be good at here is snide remarks with no basis.

I am saying anyone involved with the NIST reports needs to do what they can to revise them and if they don't they are guilty of misleading the public.
Click to expand...
Name names. You are publicly accusing people of a conspiracy.

Grow a pair Tony.
 
I see Tony's latest lie is that I haven't provided a basis for my accusations of lying. As usual, you will all find the basis whose existence he denies by scrolling up this thread. Why, I wonder, does he tell such bad lies?

Dave
 
GlennB said:
And yet lacks the vertical bars of the window frames we can see elsewhere.

Tell us, why would an object solid and heavy enough to fall and knock off the cladding adhere so religiously to that vertical line? Every impact with the rather substantial cladding panels would tend to force it away from the building.

How do explain it?
Click to expand...

If it is a gash, why do the horizontal lines of the perimeter appear continuous?

If it is a gash, why is it so symmetrical? You're asking the thing you should be asking yourself.
 
MicahJava said:
If it is a gash, why do the horizontal lines of the perimeter appear continuous?
Click to expand...

They are no such thing; they are the floors, seen through the gash.

MicahJava said:
If it is a gash, why is it so symmetrical?
Click to expand...

Because it's produced by a piece of debris falling between two perimeter columns and removing the wall between them. The mechanics are pretty obvious if you can be bothered to think about it.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
If it is a gash, why do the horizontal lines of the perimeter appear continuous?

If it is a gash, why is it so symmetrical? You're asking the thing you should be asking yourself.
Click to expand...
Do you know if this "gash" is just rows of broken windows and cladding damage it's a serious compromise in the fire protection system?
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
"Well, Jerry, it looks like we've got a classic thruther ignore-off match in progress here."

"Yes, Gary, the competitors have made some good initial moves already. Looks like an entertaining game in prospect."

"Just for all you viewers out there, I'll explain the rules. The aim is to ignore as much of the evidence as possible, so each player takes it in turn to state that a piece of evidence is faked, or misinterpret what it means, or simply pretend it doesn't exist. The winner is the one who can ignore the most evidence without going so far that the rest of the truthers call him a disinformation agent."

"And what about negative or inferential evidence, Gary?"

"Good point, Jerry. It all counts. Pretending there were explosions although nobody could see or hear them is a classic move, so is saying people heard explosions but conveniently forgetting that they were after the collapses, or about an hour before them. It all scores points.

"So who are our competitors today, Gary?"

"Well, in the blue corner, we've got Tony "The Jolt" Szamboti, an old hand at the game. Some of the evidence truthers just routinely ignore these days, he was the first to ignore; a real innovator at the sport. And in the... not sure what colour it is, maybe fuchsia with a dash of taupe - we've got the new contender, MicahJava. Untested, but he's showing considerable promise by ignoring as much damage to WTC7 as he doesn't want to admit to. So it looks like a classic match here. Any thoughts, Jerry, on who'll be the winner in this bout?"

"Well, Gary, there's a big purse up for grabs today, but I'd expect Richard Gage will walk away with it. He always does."

"And thoughts on the loser?"

"Well, Gary, I think we all know who the losers are. Ha ha ha ha ha."

"Ha ha ha ha ha. Well, viewers, Jerry and I will be your commentary team for the whole of the bout, so let's look forward to some really world class ignoring today."
Click to expand...

LMFAO!

That is awesome!
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The plane took out no more than 15% of the columns and the fires were not sufficient to do much more as NIST found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel.

Again, your comments are based on poppycock, just like your thinking the core of WTC 7 had just 15 columns.
Click to expand...

Another example of how clueless you are about steel and its properties, can't believe you actually held an engineering licence at one time,
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report has fires going on for four hours even though the photographic evidence clearly shows they were burned out in specific areas long before that and you want to give their fire simulations credibility. This also goes against experience where an office fire burns out in 30 to 40 minutes in specific areas and moves on.

Your thinking is not sensible.
Click to expand...

Yes because the best way to test for fires, heat and temperatures is photographic evidence.

No wonder AE 911 truth keeps failing so badly.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
tfk, I consider you one of the most bombastic, and unreasonable persons I have ever come across. A real curmudgeon. Nobody even cares what you say in the nonsensical tomes you write here.
Click to expand...

I feel the same about you, except I learn things from tfk, from your posts I feel dumber every time I read your drivel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom