Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Spanx]

They came, they conquered, they left.

I guess they ran out of conkers ?

 

[carlitos]

Looks to me like TS painted himself into a corner with his absurd arson/floating thermite bilge and set about changing the subject to WTC1 and "missing jolt".

Floating thermite. Floating thermite. I mean, wow. How could a sentient person defend that idea?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Floating thermite. Floating thermite. I mean, wow. How could a sentient person defend that idea?

Seems to me it would be like trying to set cars and buildings on fire with sparklers, from 900 feet up. But thermite apparently has magical properties that explain everything: It burns fast enough to create silent explosions that instantly cut all the columns, yet slow enough to keep steel melted for weeks.

 

[Hellbound]

Seems to me it would be like trying to set cars and buildings on fire with sparklers, from 900 feet up. But thermite apparently has magical properties that explain everything: It burns fast enough to create silent explosions that instantly cut all the columns, yet slow enough to keep steel melted for weeks.

Good analogy, as sparklers are a thermite reaction (although they generally use some less energetic metals and have additives to slow the reaction). For a scary thought, some sparklers can reach up to 1600 degrees C.

 

[beachnut]

Where does thermite get it magical properties to destroy WTC 7?

Could it be a vivid imagination driven by paranoia, gullibility?

Yes.

Meanwhile, we know that there are certain agents who are capable of lying to us, deceiving us and even hurting us - perhaps even elected agents and their contractors. Thus, it behooves us to watch for "unusual" illnesses also deaths of dissidents explained as "suicides" or "accidents" under unusual circumstances.

It is quite possible that biological warfare, so subtle and hidden, could be waged on a people by an enemy "foreign or domestic." We need therefore to be watchful for ourselves and for each other.

BTW, I am not suicidal and my health is now quite good.
http://911blogger.com/news/2015-03-18/i-know-what-it-feels-be-dying-rmsf-and-biological-warfare

Jones - I received an email with additional insights; and asked for and received permission to quote him.

"I am totally convinced it was a bioweapon, designed in part to get us accustomed to the "health care" system they have in mind that relies solely on chemicals to treat symptoms. All of these nuisance pains drive most people to seek medical help. We are little more than lab rats in a wide experiment.

Where I lived (VT) there were no ticks for decades, then I started seeing low-flying C-130's at night. All of a sudden there were ticks everywhere. You couldn't go out for 10 minutes without getting five on you. Some so small you can barely see them..." http://911blogger.com/news/2015-03-...ng-rmsf-and-biological-warfare#comment-262652

It is Dr Jones, fired for going bananas over 911 - which fuels the paranoia of 911 truth followers, thinking he was fired to protect the inside job.

 

[gerrycan]

You and Gerrycan made it laughably explicit what game you're playing, which has the objective of recruiting converts into the "truther" cult, not figuring out What Really Happened. Gerrycan's "game plan" was to avoid the obviously irrational argument, "NIST got something wrong, so controlled demolition is the most probable cause." You both just want to focus on, "NIST got something wrong," knowing that some gullible cult candidates will jump to their own conclusions. In case you hadn't noticed, in that game you guys are just playing with yourselves.

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

More because the technical details you consider do not lead to the irrational Conclusion of Controlled demolition, under any circumstances. They do not reach that level of significance, nor does the actual evidence exist confirming CD from the other end.

At the end of the day there is no CD regardless of how erroneous one detail from a report is. The most significance the detail will have is for code practices only, and thats about the only rational route for any discussion at this level of detail.


Youre not going to resolve that issue by circumventing it

 

[beachnut]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

You have not done any engineering yet; when will you apply your engineering skills to the inside job CD stuff you believe in?

The game you play is clear, and you clearly stated it.
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973

You have a fantasy of CD, and came up with the some propaganda style method to spread the fantasy. You can't support your claims with engineering, so you lie about fire not causing WTC 7 to collapse. Your method, bash NIST. You can't support your theory, so you bash NIST's probable cause, and fail.

You have a fantasy, you want to bash NIST; you fail to present your evidence for CD; which is not bashing NIST. Kind of a failure before you start, unable to tell your theory, because you can't support your theory. 13 years and the only people who believe you CD inside job theory are people like the Boston bombers and others who can't think for themselves.

Why did Gage not take you to support his world tour? WTC 7, what caused your CD, thermite, or silent explosives? In the fantasy world of silent explosives and magical thermite, what is the name of the store where you pick up this stuff, and who plants this stuff to murder thousands? Do you have any names in your paranoid world of inside job?
How many people did it take to plant your magical thermite and silent no blast effects explosives?

Here you have overwhelming evidence (so 911 truth claims for 13 years) of an inside job, and you are stuck using a BS new approach to back in CD. Wow. I don't remember in engineering school when I had to bash a theory to prove my theory/thesis. What engineering school did you go to which promotes BS, like bashing work, because your theory/claims are so silly no one believes them?

 

[WilliamSeger]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

Actually, your game is to stick to just those "technical aspects of the structure" and the NIST report that you think support your argument that walk-off was impossible, while ignoring or farting in the general direction of everything else. Regardless of how you score that game, the long list of points you haven't adequately answered means that you have failed to make your case: walk-off is still a plausible hypothesis, as are several other thermal-induced scenarios.

 

[Belz...]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure.

Hollywood science !

 

[NoahFence]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

Um...

No. The game you're playing is checkers. Only you can't see that there are 64 squares on the board - you're only able to see 2 of them. That's why you people are getting nowhere.

 

[GlennB]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

No, the game you're playing is bolstering your beliefs by trying to tie people up in technical knots. It's all about your delusions, and how best to protect them.

If not ... summarise your 9/11 theory.

Naturally you can have no response to this except to utter some weasel words.

 

[NoahFence]

No, the game you're playing is bolstering your beliefs by trying to tie people up in technical knots. It's all about your delusions, and how best to protect them.

If not ... summarise your 9/11 theory.

Naturally you can have no response to this except to utter some weasel words.

Post #14,000 on the nose and you wasted it on that guy....

sorry man.

 

[LSSBB]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

Then how come you don't answer technical questions about it, such as the coordinates, orientation, and distortion of all members involved with a particular connection? All I hear are questions about whether we believe or understand some aspect, without a clear definition of all the conditions involved. Plus, repeated games of "Gotcha!", where perceived errors are used to hammer away at the credibility of your opponents. I and others here are aware of your true purpose here, you outlined it on another forum. Disingenuous attempts to pretend you never said what your new method of attacking skeptics of CD, only come off as more deception.

Flat out, when it comes down to it, the discussion here is about whether the collapse of an empty building on 9/11 was due to something other than collateral damage from the collapse of WTC1 and 2. No evidence has yet been shown that WTC7 collapsed due to anything else but unfought fires brought on from the attacks on WTC1 and 2.

 

[Oystein]

Good analogy, as sparklers are a thermite reaction (although they generally use some less energetic metals and have additives to slow the reaction). ...

Are you sure about that? Sparklers may contain Al as fuel and potassium nitrate as oxidizer - and I am not sure if that isn't actually more energetic per weight unit than Fe-Al thermite.

 

[Oystein]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

I am trying to play, but you don't play along. Still open questions:

1.) About your involvement in technical research - gerrycan, are you involved in the FEA project announced by AE911Truth as part of their "ambitious agenda for 2015"? If so, in what capacity? If not, do you know who is leading this effort, who is participating?


2.) About an important technical aspect - gerrycan, is it TRUE or FALSE that, in NIST's 16-story model, the the columns were fixed laterally only at the bottom and the top, and that all columns were thus able to move laterally (in x- and y-axis) everywhere between top and bottom, if subject to corresponding forces that may arise from the heating regime?
Note that the best answer to this question is only one word: Either "TRUE" or "FALSE", and no good explanation of your answer would mention any particular connection. Please answer only the question I ask you, not some unstated question you want to ask yourself to conveniently evade my question. Thank you.

 

[jaydeehess]

The game I am playing is sticking to the technical aspects of the structure. You just don't like it cos you can't play.

Fact of the matter is that neither you or AE911T has been able to, or at least hasn't bothered to, play at the technical level that NIST operated at in the use of computer aided forensic evaluation of the WTC structures. Instead you pick at details which you evaluate with hand calculations which in turn nessitates simplification and isolation beyond that which the FEAs use. You then have the audacity to complain about simplifications used in the FEAs.

....and so we wait, and wait, for the seemingly promised independently developed FEA(s) that AE911T is doing.

 

[Hellbound]

Are you sure about that? Sparklers may contain Al as fuel and potassium nitrate as oxidizer - and I am not sure if that isn't actually more energetic per weight unit than Fe-Al thermite.

Well, I was talking about the reaction itself. It's less energetic because it reaches a lower temperature, Q.E.D. Now, whether the reactants themselves would be more or less energetic without the additives, I don't know (I'd have to run the calculations, and I'm too lazy right now ). On a rough guess, I'd think if it was more energetic, it'd be used by the military instead of thermite. The military is always looking for new and exciting ways to make things go away (although to be fair, stability and such are considerations as well, perhaps the sparkler mix is too prone to unintended ignition?).

Besides that, the fuel can be Al, Fe, Ti, or ferrotitanium, and oxidizers can vary as well. Might be an interesting calculation to make at some point, though.

 

[Oystein]

Well, I was talking about the reaction itself. It's less energetic because it reaches a lower temperature, Q.E.D.

DUUUHHHH - wrong!
Don't confuse "heat" (which is energy transfered) with "temperature"! The ordinary thermite reaction gets very hot, but releases pretty little heat (energy). Your body is more "energetic" than thermite. The reason it gets so hot is that its products don't turn to gas, which limits the maximum attainable temperature in most fires.

Now, whether the reactants themselves would be more or less energetic without the additives, I don't know (I'd have to run the calculations, and I'm too lazy right now ).

Me too too lazy

On a rough guess, I'd think if it was more energetic, it'd be used by the military instead of thermite. The military is always looking for new and exciting ways to make things go away (although to be fair, stability and such are considerations as well, perhaps the sparkler mix is too prone to unintended ignition?).

Potassium nitrate is also known as "saltpeter" and has in fact been used for military purposes for ages. Still is in propellants, as is aluminium.

Besides that, the fuel can be Al, Fe, Ti, or ferrotitanium, and oxidizers can vary as well. Might be an interesting calculation to make at some point, though.

Sure, and I am now definitely too lazy to calculate all the combinations!
Then again, the thermitians over at da Twoof are ignoring all the additives in their supposed "nano-thermite", and with that 98-100% of the heat release.



Back to topic now...

 

[Hellbound]

DUUUHHHH - wrong!
Don't confuse "heat" (which is energy transfered) with "temperature"! The ordinary thermite reaction gets very hot, but releases pretty little heat (energy). Your body is more "energetic" than thermite. The reason it gets so hot is that its products don't turn to gas, which limits the maximum attainable temperature in most fires.

Ah...I meant to do that...just testing you, yeah, that's it

Potassium nitrate is also known as "saltpeter" and has in fact been used for military purposes for ages. Still is in propellants, as is aluminium.

Yes, it's a common oxidizer and is used in the production of various explosives, but I was referring to the use of a mix similar to sparklers as an incendiary. I was thinking along the lines of usefulness for that, which led me astray as you pointed out above. Thermite is both more stable and better about delivery of heat energy to the target, but the sparkler mix might or might not be more energetic.

Sure, and I am now definitely too lazy to calculate all the combinations!
Then again, the thermitians over at da Twoof are ignoring all the additives in their supposed "nano-thermite", and with that 98-100% of the heat release.

There is nothing so complex that a quick simplification can't cause it to be hilariously (or sadly, depending on viewpoint) wrong (again, see point 1 above for a perfect example...doh!)

I may actually see if I can run some of the numbers this week...I'm getting curious now.

Back to topic now...

Yeah, I should probably shut up now, too