Hang on a bit. NIST gave us an animation from ansys yet will not reveal the inputs. They gave us their answer without showing how they got it. One can only reach the conclusion that they don't want the information disclosed. Since we have a lot of the drawings now, what justification do they have for not releasing their inputs?
WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44
- Thread starter Gamolon
- Start date
- Status
Hang on a bit. NIST gave us an animation from ansys yet will not reveal the inputs. They gave us their answer without showing how they got it. One can only reach the conclusion that they don't want the information disclosed. Since we have a lot of the drawings now, what justification do they have for not releasing their inputs?
An engineer does not need NIST to figure out 911. What does the Gage think about this? Wait, Gage never read NIST, he is a fraud, or nuts. Gage has not time for NIST. Do you need NIST to figure out fire helped destroy WTC 7?
Times like this when you look back and wonder why you failed to get an engineering degree; then you remember, it was too darn hard and required math.
Oops, math. Does it look right or what? I think if 911 truth has some differential equations to go with their claims, they might do better. Is there some math coming? Why is 911 truth unable to do the math?
Last edited:
What math are you looking for? In the video we used the equation for unrestrained expansion, and weighted every variable in favour of NISTs story. The math still says that NIST are wrong in their conclusion.
We? I think you are full of it.
Are you going to prove your point? Where is your paper? lol, you don't have one. You got nothing but talk. You sound like Gage.
Once again, a great reason to back to school to become an engineer. If you know NIST is wrong what is stopping you from making a point?
What is your point?
Why can't Gage's 1600 plus engineers and architects do anything? Because they are all failures? When will they expose the big inside job?
Here we are, you say NIST is wrong and offer nothing more than talk.
I say I don't need NIST to figure out fire did it. I wasted 5.5 years at engineering school, kind of makes it funny to watch non-engineers, and paranoid conspiracy engineers make up failed claims. What is stopping you? Right, 4 years or more of not going to Engineering school, and failing to use an engineer to guide you past the nonsense of 911. 10 years of nothing from 911 truth, Gage makes over 400,000 dollars a year doing nothing but begging for money, and you, can't prove anything.
Why do you need NIST's inputs when you have 1600 plus engineers from Gage's super travel club? Why can't they do anything to help you understand 911?
Last edited:
OK, first of all, you have no clue what I am qualified in. Maybe you need to tell me exactly where we got it wrong in the videos. For example, can you show me where NIST got the idea that the seat 'pf' was 11" from these drawings, which they had in their posession when they made this claim.
WE made the video. LOOK at the description in the first video. A group of people got together and researched this video. The WE put it on youtube. And if you think Im full of it, then debate US live right now. We'll even record it for you if you like, and you can show us where we are going wrong.
You need to ask NIST, I don't need NIST to understand fire and steel, why do you? Why can't you figure out 911? Are you an engineer or not?
Oh, you are an engineer? Why do your fellow engineers not agree with you? All the engineers I have worked with understand WTC 7 failed in fire, why can't you understand it?
Prove they were wrong, publish your paper in a journal! What is stopping you? A degree? Evidence? You don't want to be famous, a great engineer? Shy? What cause WTC 7 to fail in your story?
How many of your fellow engineers are with you?
Please post the video link again. I skimmed the thread and can't find it. As noted though, youtube is a silly place to post engineering information. No one of any consequence gives a **** about your bravado. Engineers publish peer-reviewed papers; they don't crow about their imaginary friends on the jref forum.
The point of the videos is that NIST got it wrong. You obviously believe their story, and claim to have the technical background and ability to back this up. There are 2 of us ready right now to listen to what you have to say, and illustrate to you where NISTs story is wrong technically. Just say the word and we can sit down and discuss the technical aspects of this in real time. I assure you that you will be treated with respect and listened to.
You have nothing to debate, you have no point, no goal, no math, no physics, no engineering. Are you engineers, or what?
What caused WTC 7 to collapse? What is your conclusion beside NIST is wrong? What caused it? When will the paper be published? Engineers don't debate, they publish papers, they produce work; where is your work to prove your point?
This isn't bravado. it is a genuine invitation to discuss the technical aspects of wtc7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zsp0UcgMzs&feature=player_embedded thats the 3rd video WE did.
WTC7 requires a new investigation in my opinion. To achieve this end, proving the inadequacy of NISTs conclusions is the first step. As for what caused the collapse, not just fire and gravity. Out of interest, do you believe that the girder 'walked' or 'rocked' off the seat at column 79? Or maybe a bit of both?
Where are the engineers behind this video? What college of engineering agrees with your work? No paper?
Fire and gravity are enough, the video is delusional claptrap.
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
The first video starts with the "short collapse" (minus east penthouse) and the third ends with the claim WTC7 fell in 6.6 seconds.
Given the series opens and closes with total misrepresentations of the collapse, why should we believe anything in between is accurate.
Last edited:
OK, some nice math you got there to get to that conclusion. Why not tell me where the video is wrong and I could address it. And again, my qualifications are none of your business.
Would it be better to say that the NW corner takes approx 6.6s to go from rest to the ground?
Last edited:
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
No - you should be honest about the total length of the collapse if you want to be taken seriously outside the confines of the DIF.
Don't be upset you failed to go to engineering school, it is was hard work; much easier to make up nonsense and publish it on youtube. How is that working out? 10 years and you can't figure out fire and gravity did it.
If the fires had been fought, no collapse. When will you publish your paper? What journal?
Don't be upset you are not an engineer.
Last edited:
I will take on board what you say about the total collapse time.And how long do you think the NW corner took to reach the ground? Where should we start the collapse time from? Should it be from the failure of column 79 maybe? This would be before the penthouse collapsed obviously. When exactly should we start the stopwatch do you think?
- Status