I found the missing Jolt.

[FalseFlag]

You think you need formal instruction and experience to know that Fire + Steel = bad things for buildings??

No, you don't need formal instruction to know this. Everyone knows fire is bad for a building, and some people get lots of education so they can design buildings to resist this.

 

[FalseFlag]

Tony made clear - again - that he believes no steel framed highrise can ever collapse as a result of initiation by fire.

"Can" ever, or "has" ever? What text are you referring to?

 

[FalseFlag]

We'll both find this out shortly...

I can't wait.

Just so you know, I will be providing non-expert commentary as you post. I'm not sure what thread I will post in, but I will make sure you find it.

So many lulz will be had.

 

[skyeagle409]

No, you don't need formal instruction to know this. Everyone knows fire is bad for a building, and some people get lots of education so they can design buildings to resist this.

Now, think why fire protection is placed around steel structures of buildings.

 

[FalseFlag]

Now, think why fire protection is placed around steel structures of buildings.

I know why. Do you? If you know why, and then applied your knowledge to WTC7, you might actually see the problem.

 

[skyeagle409]

This evidence has been posted. You choose to ignore it.

Which buildings are you referring to? Definitely can't be the WTC buildings considering no one heard demolition explosions as those buildings collapsed, which explains why no demolition explosions are seen nor heard on video or detected by seismographs.

It also explains the lack of CD hardware evidence within the WTC rubble.


.

 

[skyeagle409]

I know why. Do you? If you know why, and then applied your knowledge to WTC7, you might actually see the problem.

Of course! Fire will weaken exposed steel structures to the point of collapse. The Kader buildings and the steel-supported overpass collapse due to fire near San Francisco, CA. are clear examples. Other examples are the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7 and the internal collapse of WTC 5, all due to fire.

 

[TJM]

Who has claimed "classic CD"? Making that claim would be foolish. We suspect it was CD, and it was unlike anything we have seen before, or after 9/11.

*Yawn*

 

[skyeagle409]

No investigation is complete unless it thoroughly examines every reasonable possibility.

Just to let you know that investigations by experts of the WTC building collapses have been completed and the investigations have concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of those buildings.

 

[skyeagle409]

Is it credible?

Of course, and by experts as well.

 

[skyeagle409]

You test for explosives at the beginning of the investigation in order to rule out possible causes.

False! You have to have a reason to investigate for explosives. In addition, no one saw nor heard demolition explosions nor were such explosions detected by seismographs.

In other words, no reason to believe that explosives were used and furthermore, it would have been impossible to properly prepare a steel frame building for demolition in secret for almost a year if not longer, especially in occupied buildings.

 

[NoahFence]

No, you don't need formal instruction to know this. Everyone knows fire is bad for a building, and some people get lots of education so they can design buildings to resist this.

Accidental moment of clarity?

Or do you think resist is the same as prevent?

 

[skyeagle409]

I will consider your arguments once you learn what a credible source is.

How amusing that you would questioned well-qualified experts while supporting the frauds and liars at AE911Turth. You have made it crystal-clear as to where you are coming from, and it is not from the side of reality.

I might add that it doesn't make a bit of difference what you consider credible or not, it is all about the reality of what the evidence depicts.

 

[NoahFence]

What scientific tests did they perform?

Do you need a scientific test to know that water is wet?

 

[skyeagle409]

LOL.

Seriously?

What happens to the airframe of the SR-71 once it cools?

It cools back to it original state. The SR-71 was specially built to deal with heat expansion during high speed flight.

I might add that the SR-71 was NOT the fastest aircraft during its operational flights, the fastest and highest flying aircraft was the A-12, not the SR-71. Just thought that you would like to know that.

 

[skyeagle409]

Thank you for explaining how "they" got to you.

Got to me for what?! I deal in facts, not fiction. That is why I told you that the collapse of the WTC buildings had nothing to do with explosives. I asked you to post video time lines where you thought demolition explosions were heard as the WTC buildings collapsed and you failed the test.

I hope you didn't think your avoidance of meeting my video challenge didn't go unnoticed.

 

[FalseFlag]

This will be my last post to you that attempts to explain anything.

You never had a first post that explains everything, so I doubt this will be the last.

You’re simply not worth the effort

The volume and length of your posts suggest otherwise.

And I have come to the end of my willingness to waste any more of my time on you.

The length of your post suggests otherwise.

The reason that I use the model is the same reason that all competent structural / mechanical engineers would use this model: because it got several key, observable events correct.

Again? Come on. How can I help you if you won't try to help yourself? Learn what all-inclusive means, and then you can start using those terms. Baby steps. Take baby steps.

You focus on one aspect, the late collapse portion, which is well into the chaotic phase, because that is all that you’re capable of seeing. Or admitting.

No. Every bit of both models is garbage and fraudulent.

The events that happen up to the moment of collapse initiation are, to a large degree, deterministic. They can be modeled with a good degree of reliability, because the conditions of the components can be calculated very well and the interdependent event bifurcations happen on time scales measured in hours, minutes and seconds.

I agree. Of course this all depends on what data is used. Garbage in equals garbage out. Fraud in equals NIST models 1 and 2.

In the deterministic regime, small changes in inputs lead to small changes in outputs, and so the analysis is relatively stable.

Translation: NIST kept tweaking and fine-tuning the garbage they used as input.

After collapse initiation begins, the condition of the components is not nearly as well known (because all the failures have occurred well into non-linear stress/strain regimes) & those bifurcations happen on the scale of tenths & hundredths of a second.

Here, let me help you. What you mean to say is that because there are so many variables, the only way to test the accuracy of the computer model is to perform real-world experiments.

Please show me the real-world experiments NIST performed to validate their computer models.

In this regime, tiny variations in the sequence of events lead to large changes in outputs. This is the very definition of the concept of “chaos”.

I think you what you meant to say was "colossal fraud".

Engineers & mathematicians understand the differences between these two regimes, and how much confidence to put into the details of each.

True. I would say they all know this. The ones being paid or forced to commit fraud have to overlook it.

It must be tough to ignore the obvious, which stares them (and you) in the face.

You don’t understand at all.

Wait for it...

We don’t care that you don’t understand.

I think I said something about number and volume of posts. You might want to consider that when you make those sorts of claims.

Most competent engineers would simply glance at the global collapse & not put a high credence into any of the details.

Baby steps is working! You said "most" instead of "all".

Unfortunately, your statement is wrong. Most competent engineers would laugh at and deride the morons who created the NIST models.

Most competent engineers would attach a high level of credence to the events prior to collapse initiation.

I'm sure they would, if they knew what they really were.

Just like Shayam Sunder, John Gross & the rest of NIST’s engineers do.

Moe, Larry, and the rest of the "stooges"?

You, on the other hand, constantly forget this fact, as you stagger wildly back & forth between “I am not an expert” & “I understand physics”.

I don't have to be an expert to have an basic understanding of physics. I also don't have to be an expert to relentlessly ridicule your posts.

Or, as below, “I understand the limits of computer modeling.”

Please post the exact text where I allegedly make this claim.

Your non-expert opinion, while amusing, is irrelevant to anyone except you.

Volume and length.

Volume and length.

Volume and length.

Chant it like you do at your NWO meetings.

You only want to continue talking BS in generic, unspecific terms.

No. I'm pretty sure I have used specific terms to expose the fraud you are committing.

*snip lots of NIST diaper material*

If NIST is so credible, then just admit that WTC 7 collapsed at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

*more NIST snipping*

What software did NIST use to create their computer model? Where can I download that program and the data they used?

You know as much about “credible engineers” as you do about physics: nothing.

When you see a shooting star, is your wish for this statement to be true?

Verification & validation of NIST’s software, & its substructure modeling is a HUGE part of the NIST report.

Where are the real-world experiments? I guess I must have missed that part of the NIST report.

Get off your ass.
Or not.
I couldn’t care less.

Volume and length.

Volume and length.

Wait for it...

You’re stupidly suggesting that knowledge free amateurs can detect “errors & omissions” that expert structural engineers could not detect.

No. I can not detect individual errors and omissions. I can only see the big picture, and that is because it's so obvious.

 

[FalseFlag]

It cools back to it original state.

Repeat that.

That is they key to your transition from a skeptic to a truther.

Learn it. Know it. Live it. - Brad Hamilton (Fast Times at Ridgemont High)

 

[FalseFlag]

*Yawn*

*sigh*

This is unfortunate, and it's an obvious poor choice of words. No, I'm not an expert, and that is just my opinion. They should not have used "classic".

 

[skyeagle409]

How hot does the fire have to be? How long does it have to burn?

This video will give you a hint.


Bending railroad tracks by hand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrUBFDYe0U

What happens if the fire moves from one part of the office to the other?

The fire spreads. Remember, office furniture and paper are not exactly fireproof.



How long did it take fire to collapse these steel frame buildings?


Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast... Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory_fire


.