Challenge: Demonstrate Sagging floor Trusses Pulling in Perimeter Columns
- Thread starter enik
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse
Engineering. I have an ATP too, so when your inside job gets into the flying of 911, you will fail faster.
FEA is only as good as the operator. You are looking to prove a fantasy, your FEA has failed.
You say "debunkers are not smart", yet you can't prove your inside job CD stuff. How smart do you have to be to hold on to a fantasy for 12 years? What happens when you apply an FEA to Flight 93, and Flight 77?
Last edited:
Just general engineering? Did you do a thesis?
I don't see the point. What would you expect to see?
ozeco41
Philosopher
If fed the wrong problem it will churn out the wrong answers.
It is not the answer to false context assumptions or false logic.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Beachnut is taking the holistic view. This is opposite to the AE911 style approach of focus on the incidents in New York and hoping that it somehow can be broadened to apply a conspiracy behind everything. A complete conspiracy theory needs to explain ALL the events of the day.
CD and the inside job are a fantasy. An engineer should be smart enough to understand who did 911. It is sad a few fringe engineers make up lies about 911, models, and their fellow engineers. Unable to join reality, they hide behind a "knowing" their FEA is reality, as they attack FEAs by other engineers. Irony, they have no shown any models are wrong, and failed to show any studies are wrong; they talk of it, but can't show it except to those who have no clue, the rest of 911 truth, the followers, a fringe few who refuse to think for themselves and fail to get the guidance of millions of engineers, millions.
Failing, with no evidence for their inside job, 911 truth experts have to attack the work of others, play the old you don't know anything card, the big talk, no evidence card.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I chose the wrong smilie. I didn't have one which said "enik will not process analogies" NOR will he process the inferences that FEA is not the solution to everything.
I once had a boss who had a limited engineering world view - his was the inside of various sizes and shapes of sewer pipes and 20,000KM long. (He was boss of the whole Sydney system at the time). Enik's engineering world view is strongly limited to FEA. He computes little outside the scope of FEA hence reasoned argument has no impact - like T Sz he dismisses reasoning as inconsequential. Plus insults and the phallic references to the "size" of degrees.
My apology to all if the poor choice of smilie sent the wrong message.
...beachnut you were "spot on".
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]
If fed the wrong problem it will churn out the wrong answers.
It is not the answer to false context assumptions or false logic.
We all understand the potential for GIGO. However, to eliminate it as an issue we usually validate an FEA against test results. This is precisely what Enik did.
You are doing nothing but an enormous handwave to try and get rid of a serious dilemma for your theory, which is Enik's validated FEA showing the perimeter columns could not have been pulled in via the floor trusses.
Last edited:
How very interesting that your "validation rules" depend upon whether the result supports or refutes your beliefs.
Careful now Tony.
Your recently and hastily made-up "24 outer core column removal causing multi-storey pull-in of all perimeters as the core falls" theory is rather dependand upon "pull-in".
Of course, pull-in, more commonly termed inward bowing, of the perimeters was observed (real-world observation, not made-up non-existant rubbish) on the East face of WTC2 and South face of WTC1 only, and many minutes prior to release of the "upper section".
You're going to have to find "some" reason for it Tony.
Your "theory" isn't "put in motion" until many minutes later.
So, Tony, what DID cause the real-world inward bowing of the East perimeter of WTC2 and the South perimeter of WTC1 many minutes prior to release ?
Oh, and in case you missed it...
Have you bothered to check the following simulation from your co-author, Gregory Szuladzinski...
Cleaned-up...
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
I could be wrong, but I thought that to handwave something away requires the handwaver to understand what has been presented in the first place. Not sure that's the case here.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Now femr - you are forgetting that key rule of truther trolling "Thou dost not need to ensure that thy posts are consistent. In fact it is better if thou makest them different so as to confuse thine opponents."
Except that the confusion bit doesn't work with you or Me.
EDIT Ooops -- or beachnut 
As for enik's "validation" I cannot recall seeing one of enik's FEA's used to support a contentious argument here that did not have fatal errors of context setting. He is very good at using FEA in a defined context. Where context definition is the key to the challenge he, like Tony, invariably gets it wrong.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
You are, it doesn't, it isn't.
enik has done nothing. He has not show his work, he has done the same as you, hand-wave, and then call others the hand-wavers, which only fools those who can't think for themselves.
enik has shown nothing, but he can fool posters at the fiction loving Loose Change Forum.
Publish or perish. You tricked a journal, enik has not.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Does anyone know of any video of the south wall of the North Tower bowed inward minutes before the collapse, as NIST purports using only a photo as evidence?
There were a lot of helicopters taking video, and video would surely be a more valid way of confirming it occurred "minutes" before collapse, but I have yet to see video of this alleged inward bowing of the south wall.
There were a lot of helicopters taking video, and video would surely be a more valid way of confirming it occurred "minutes" before collapse, but I have yet to see video of this alleged inward bowing of the south wall.
No.
Several high resolution photographs were used, providing image clarity far beyond what would be visible from video footage. Click to enlarge...
Pathetic.
Testimony of the aircraft crew timing correlates with the image EXIF data...
...which is a quote from me, on your failed "Missing Jolt" thread, way back in 2011
Timestamp sync here.
Pathetic.
Your recently and hastily made-up "24 outer core column removal causing multi-storey pull-in of all perimeters as the core falls" theory is rather dependand upon "pull-in".
Of course, pull-in, more commonly termed inward bowing, of the perimeters was observed (real-world observation, not made-up non-existant rubbish) on the East face of WTC2 and South face of WTC1 only, and many minutes prior to release of the "upper section".
You're going to have to find "some" reason for it Tony.
Your "theory" isn't "put in motion" until many minutes later.
So, Tony, what DID cause the real-world inward bowing of the East perimeter of WTC2 and the South perimeter of WTC1 many minutes prior to release ?
Last edited:
Remarkable, I present an entire post proving FEA using NIST testing data and this is the best you can do? This is a very simple challenge and I am sure not beyond your technical abilities but I could be wrong.
Still waiting on that thesis question.
Not sure where you are going with this whole topic. But I see you are making a lot of new friends over here.
Ozeco41, I see you did not answer this question. I am afraid I can't make it any simplier than this.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
What precisely is the consequence of your FEA results? You seem to put heavy weight on the notion that the floors could not have pulled in the perimeter columns. We're there any other mechanisms that your results show would be more likely to factor in?
Again you seem to put heavy emphasis on this idea. I'm confused about what exactly the consequences are supposed to be. I believe a combination of factors led to the bowing of perimeter columns, why the focus on a single one?
I agree, but sagging floor trusses was not one of them.