I found the missing Jolt.

[jaydeehess]

Dave, NIST did mud cracking of the paint and spheroidization tests to check the steel for temperatures experienced and the report says only three pieces were above 250 degrees C, and they weren't beyond 600 degrees C.

As I said above.

I think one can rightfully say they found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel with that information.

As explained above and by NIST in the reports, ignored by you.

The inference in the fire simulation basis you are going on is extremely tenuous. The guy you are agreeing with here (Jaydeehess) also says they couldn't identify the steel, so how can you do inference

WTF
You really don't understand the sequence in this?
The steel that was tested and noted the temp it reached WAS identified. The temps experienced by identified, physical steel samples matches the computer prediction for for the same steel.
The inference then is that since the program got it right in those areas, it got them right in other areas. How is that "tenuous"?

Now a fire 'sim' that is tenuous is the one that Chris Sarns produced, and yet AE911T lauded that.

 

[beachnut]

For sure

... You are right that Verinage type techniques could have been used. We don't know for sure and that is why I usually say "some form of demolition devices were used". ...

Where is your evidence for CD?

... We don't know for sure ...

No evidence, no clue what did it.

hint, smoke, fire, steel fails in fire.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As I said above.


As explained above and by NIST in the reports, ignored by you.


WTF
You really don't understand the sequence in this?
The steel that was tested and noted the temp it reached WAS identified. The temps experienced by identified, physical steel samples matches the computer prediction for for the same steel.
The inference then is that since the program got it right in those areas, it got them right in other areas.

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.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

We were speaking about how the fire program in the towers was verified by sampling steel.

 

[JSanderO]

Tony the steel (beams or girders) does not need to expand very much to destroy the connections/bolts and welds.

I am not referring to column 79 seat.

And I don't believe that a single failure at 70 would collapse the building. But several likely did.

 

[jaydeehess]

BTW, 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?



,,,,,,,,,,,, and I'm not the sensible thinker..............

 

[Tony Szamboti]

We were speaking about how the fire program in the towers was verified by sampling steel.

The fire simulation could have been and most likely was manipulated for air temperatures around the pieces of steel they physically tested to match those steel temperatures, while increasing temperatures in other areas to cause problems.

You have given credibility where none is deserved. The many serious distortions, omissions, and ignoring of situations discovered in the NIST WTC reports, especially WTC 7, shows they are not trustworthy.

I think the only trustworthy part in any of the reports are the aircraft impacts and damage and they were not nearly enough to take the buildings down.

 

[jaydeehess]

The fire simulation could have been and most likely was manipulated for air temperatures around the pieces of steel they physically tested to match those steel temperatures, while increasing temperatures in other areas to cause problems.

You have given credibility where none is deserved. The many serious distortions, omissions, and ignoring of situations discovered in the NIST WTC reports, especially WTC 7, shows they are not trustworthy.

I think the only trustworthy part in any of the reports are the aircraft impacts and damage and they were not nearly enough to take the buildings down.

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?

 

[jaydeehess]

..........the aircraft impacts and damage and they were not nearly enough to take the buildings down.

They weren't!!!???
Thanks Captain Obvious

 

[Dave Rogers]

I see that Tony, the proven liar, is now accusing NIST of lying. The problem is, Tony lies about what people have stated in writing, which can easily be checked and found to be a lie. He then thinks that he can accuse anyone who disagrees with his opinions of lying, because he feels his opinions are always factually correct. The resulting impression is that, not only does he lie frequently, he doesn't even fully understand what a lie is. In the circumstances, it seems pointless for him to claim any credibility for the unsupported assertions he keeps making. He doesn't seem to me to have the mental models to assess his own claims effectively.

Dave

 

[BenBurch]

It's right here! http://www.beveragesdirect.com/products/jolt-cola-caffeinated-bottles?variant=2969318145

 

[DGM]

The fire simulation could have been and most likely was manipulated for air temperatures around the pieces of steel they physically tested to match those steel temperatures, while increasing temperatures in other areas to cause problems.

You have given credibility where none is deserved. The many serious distortions, omissions, and ignoring of situations discovered in the NIST WTC reports, especially WTC 7, shows they are not trustworthy.

The names of the people that prepared the reports are available. Would you care to name the people you implicate in this conspiracy? Let me guess, you would rather a "new investigation" do that for you?

 

[tfk]

Who cares what a clueless, politically motivated idiot, with zero understanding of remedial structural mechanics thinks?

Why don't moderators catch this when a skeptic does it?

My statements are accurate.

He’s a high school physics teacher.
He teaches the lowest, most remedial grade of physics to complete neophytes in the subject.

He has ZERO background in structural engineering.
That makes him “a complete amateur”, by definition.

He is bloviating in a field in which he is a complete amateur.
That puts him on very, very thin ice.

He adamantly refuses to get his crap reviewed by competent professionals.
That makes him “clueless”.
It also renders him bereft of “understanding of remedial structural mechanics”.

He brings up US foreign policy & wars in Afghanistan & Iraq constantly.
That makes him “politically motivated”.

My definition of Chandler was specific, addressed the issues & is accurate.

I am also accurate when I say that ZERO professionals give a rat’s azz what “clueless, politically motivated idiot, with zero understanding of remedial structural mechanics” think about ANY subject.

What the hell are you bitchin’ about??

No professional cares.

More than 2500 professionals care. You just ignore it since it's a fact.

“Professionals” in my statement CLEARLY referred to “professionals in structural engineering”.
Of those, there are perhaps 30 in AE911T.

2200 of the morons in AE911T are complete amateurs in the topics that matter.

About 300 have some peripherally related experience (structural or mechanical engineering) that SHOULD allow them to understand NIST’s methods & conclusions.

Gage has given clueless, incompetent structural & mechanical engineers a place to declare their incompetence. Perhaps his one & only service to society.

But my real definition is more stringent than that.
It should read, “professionals with expertise in the pertinent topics: tall buildings, progressive failure & tall building collapse dynamics.”

Of which, AE911T possesses precisely … zero.

And, as I accurately stated, NO real professional - in any subject - gives a rat’s azz what a bunch of amateurs think.

 

[beachnut]

It is the NIST WTC reports that spread false claims. They had to distort, omit, and ignore many pertinent structural features and situations to even make what they were saying have even a hint of plausibility. When the distorted items are corrected, and the omitted and ignored items and situations are included in their analysis they change the conclusions to the opposite of what the report says. Get it right.

The FBI should have investigated people who had access to the interiors of the buildings. They have never done that and it is a glaring hole in their investigation.

You have no distorted items to present, you have CD fantasy.
You have no omitted stuff, you have the CD fantasy.
The distortions and omissions are failed opinions based on the need to have a CD fantasy which has no evidence.

FBI did investigate, 9/11 truth can't take the CD fantasy to the FBI, there is no evidence. Only ones who believe the CD fantasy, 9/11 truth followers.

Got evidence for explosives? Why were they silent?

 

[GlennB]

It's right here! http://www.beveragesdirect.com/products/jolt-cola-caffeinated-bottles?variant=2969318145

The price gave me a serious jolt until I realised it was a 12-pack.

 

[tfk]

I also wouldn't call the 64% of g descent acceleration of the North Tower, significantly less than g.

LMFAO.

And THIS, Tony, is exactly why you are technically incompetent.

In engineering terms, your moronic assertion translates PRECISELY into "you wouldn't call 25,000 tons of force significantly greater than Zero."

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I see that Tony, the proven liar, is now accusing NIST of lying. The problem is, Tony lies about what people have stated in writing, which can easily be checked and found to be a lie. He then thinks that he can accuse anyone who disagrees with his opinions of lying, because he feels his opinions are always factually correct. The resulting impression is that, not only does he lie frequently, he doesn't even fully understand what a lie is. In the circumstances, it seems pointless for him to claim any credibility for the unsupported assertions he keeps making. He doesn't seem to me to have the mental models to assess his own claims effectively.

Dave

But it is you who does not provide a basis for your accusations and now have the nerve to question me further.

People can go back and see if you back your assertions. You don't. You are just a clever manipulator and a serious liar trying to smear me because you have no other way to do your job of defending the discredited official story of what occurred on 911.

I wish the story we were told checked out. Unfortunately, it doesn't and no matter how many manipulative liars like you they throw at the problem they have it won't make it better.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

LMFAO.

And THIS, Tony, is exactly why you are technically incompetent.

In engineering terms, your moronic assertion translates PRECISELY into "you wouldn't call 25,000 tons of force significantly greater than Zero."

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.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

 

[DGM]

But it is you who does not provide a basis for your accusations and now have the nerve to question me further.

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.