• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
LSSBB said:
Congratulations, you have shown NIST did not completely describe column positions to complete your understanding. Have you submitted a suggested rewording yet?
Click to expand...

Please note gerrycan has not responded to this point, which directly attacks the weakness of this hand calculation approach, based solely on narrative without addressing what the model actually demonstrated.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
No, this is a criteria for failure that was applied to the model rather than a failure that was observed in it. Huge difference.
Click to expand...
Was the criteria met by the model?

Why are you refusing to answer my simple question? I think as this point we need to consider your statement as false. The NIST hypothesis has not been proven to be false because you can't say to whom.
 
DGM said:
Was the criteria met by the model?
Click to expand...
NIST have published no data to confirm this no.
Should the expansion to the East that would have broken the C38 connection been accounted for when the criteria was set ? Of course it should have been. Was it? NO
 
LSSBB said:
Don't know which columns K3004 was connected to? Look at the drawing.
Click to expand...
Just out of interest LSSBB. Which drawing would you direct me to if I wanted to look at this connection?
You don't know - because you haven't looked.
You don't even know what K3004 is connected to at each end.
 
LSSBB said:
What about the other end, or was that hovering in space, like an angel?
Click to expand...

You're the guy that just told me to go look at the drawings.
Look at E12/13 and find K3004 and look at each end of it. You have never done this yet throughout all of this discussion. Very telling.
 
gerrycan said:
Just out of interest LSSBB. Which drawing would you direct me to if I wanted to look at this connection?
You don't know - because you haven't looked.
You don't even know what K3004 is connected to at each end.
Click to expand...

Why waste time on NIST, when you have the big inside job CD waiting to be be exposed; Pulitzer Prize winning claims, and you are wasting time doing something you already proved in your fantasy to be false. NIST in your fantasy world of CD is false.'

Now is the time to present your inside job proof, the engineering super paper showing it was CD, packed with evidence. Yes, tell me it is true, you finally found the overwhelming evidence 911 truth says it has.
 
gerrycan said:
NIST have published no data to confirm this no.
...
Click to expand...

And yet you essentially declare the data wrong? Interesting.



By the way:
You still haven't answered my questions from long ago. I tried to clarify:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10539905#post10539905

Excerpt:
I merely wanted you to acknowledge explicitly that all nodes between top and bottom were free to move laterally, both in the NIST model and in reality. You seem to previously have denied that, for example, col 79 at the 13th floor level might have moved laterally in the model and/or in reality.



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?
 
Ziggi said:
How come Edna Cintron was seen standing amidst your "uninterupted inferno" Chris? Hmm? Her being there does not quite match your story, and neither does the account of the firemen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT-po-tmJRc
...
Click to expand...
This is the best 911 truth has. Mocking the murdered and ignoring the fire. Good job spreading lies about 911. 13 solid years of failure. No clue steel fails in fire. No clue the woman is trying to avoid being burned; did you want her to sit at her desk?

Are you guys doing it for the ad money? I would link to your web site of woo, but it has no value, no engineering, no science, no clue. 911 truth, spreads lies about 911, making up BS, unable to explain who did their fantasy version of 911, unable to do more than talk.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
What about the other end, or was that hovering in space, like an angel?
Click to expand...

There are no words.....
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • beamsgirderblackfine.jpg
    beamsgirderblackfine.jpg
    149 KB · Views: 52
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
I am willing to bet that your pseudonym is a spoof on the word "spanks", implying that you are the spanker of others who you claim to spank metaphorically.
Well you are clearly the one who has been spanked on this thread (due to your own intransigence, so blame yourself) and the only reaction you can muster, in an attempt to continue your charade, is akin to saying "prove to me the sun is hot". It sounds like something a brat would say, instead of someone willing to have a mature discussion.
Click to expand...


Spanx said:
Oh bless you Tony, Google spanx
You might find something for your wife ?

Shame you didn't provide the evidence asked for but that was to be expected.

As for Gerrycan can we assume he is a German arsonist ?
Click to expand...
Illustrative Rorschach-like example of the conspiracists’ mind at work.
 
Oystein said:
And yet you essentially declare the data wrong? Interesting.



By the way:
You still haven't answered my questions from long ago. I tried to clarify:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10539905#post10539905

Excerpt:
I merely wanted you to acknowledge explicitly that all nodes between top and bottom were free to move laterally, both in the NIST model and in reality. You seem to previously have denied that, for example, col 79 at the 13th floor level might have moved laterally in the model and/or in reality.



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?
Click to expand...

You got your answer and clearly didn't like it. Tough.
You stated that all the connections moved in axis that reality would have seen. This is clearly not the case as the C38 connection with k3004 did not fail in the model.
I don't expect you to like that reality. But it is nonetheless the reality that you are faced with. .
 
LSSBB said:
What about the other end, or was that hovering in space, like an angel?
Click to expand...

Ahhhh now I see. You thought that K3004 was the girder rather than the beam. One has to wonder how you could not even have a basic idea of the elements and their positions this far into a discussion that has been largely based around those elements.
I am not saying that one has to wonder for long though.
 
Originally Posted by gerrycan
NISTs collapse initiating event has been invalidated. I'm not asking you to like it, just to stop clinging to that which is not plausible. In that way the discussion can move on perhaps.
Click to expand...


beachnut said:
A lie, you made up. Where is the engineering proof? Looks like you are stuck with BS, you say NIST has been invalidated, with no clue what probable means. Where is the engineering, you have no technical issues, you have BS?

Your CD is invalidated, it is a fantasy. 19 terrorists did 911, and the effects of fire caused WTC 7 to collapse. In addition, WTC was totaled by fire before it collapsed. It is sad to see people lie; you can't invalidate anything.

The only thing you can do is ... http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
Your approach, bash NIST, as a true NIST basher, you can't mention CD, you have no evidence. Your failed logic rests on lies about NIST, and then make the big lie, NIST is invalidated. Something you made up.

Okay, you have invalidated NIST in your mind, a delusional claim; where is your support for CD? How many people have fallen for your "new approach"? How many engineers have fallen for it? I only have 5.5 years of engineering school, why can't you convince men with all that fancy engineering talk? Wait, you never did anything but BS talk.
Click to expand...
Also, NIST never said the beams that buckled the C79-C44 girder expanded at least 5.5”.
 
DGM said:
I'm not putting words in you mouth. You claim the FEA does not support the criteria the NIST set for collapse. Is this not true?
Click to expand...

The criteria for failure of girders and expecially the critical one C79-44 should have accounted for all the connection elements and also should have accounted for the beam K3004's connection to C38. It didn't.
 
gerrycan said:
Ahhhh now I see. You thought that K3004 was the girder rather than the beam. One has to wonder how you could not even have a basic idea of the elements and their positions this far into a discussion that has been largely based around those elements.
I am not saying that one has to wonder for long though.
Click to expand...

. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable.
Click to expand...
You already proved it to yourself! Now is the time to bread the inside job.

I thought you already claimed victory? What happened? Is the NIST report refuted? You said it was.

Now you can present the case for the inside job. The CD fantasy, all your overwhelming evidence.
 
gerrycan said:
The criteria for failure of girders and expecially the critical one C79-44 should have accounted for all the connection elements and also should have accounted for the beam K3004's connection to C38. It didn't.
Click to expand...
Why is it you can't answer a question? Are you claiming the criteria was faulty or the FEA?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom