Didn't Chris Sarns say it was in the ceiling tiles ? Maybe it was in the gypsum board ?
- Status
Didn't Chris Sarns say it was in the ceiling tiles ? Maybe it was in the gypsum board ?
What is it exactly that you're expecting me to respond to?
That was Jim Hoffman iirc. Something like 2 million ceiling tiles rigged with nanothermite explosives (or something) and wireless detonators.
You cannot make this up
eta: Yep
Last edited:
That was Jim Hoffman iirc. Something like 2 million ceiling tiles rigged with nanothermite explosives (or something) and wireless detonators.
You cannot make this up
The best thing is that it doesn't need a heat source to ignite, just contact with car paint.
Last edited:
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
I don't agree at all that all the nodes and connections in the model experienced movement in all directions that reality would have seen. If that were the case, the floor beam would have broken its connection at the east end also and NISTs original 5.5" claim would have lost the best part of an inch.
Surely you aren't asserting that in reality this connection wouldn't fail?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Small nit pick. The neutral will also create arcing if it's broken and connected to a load. Under load it carries to same amount of current as the hot.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? What makes you think electrical power was shut off to building 7 prior to the tower collapses?
If it was, that really throws a wrench into Barry Jennings account.
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Perhaps you misunderstand, Gerry. I'm merely drawing your attention to posts requiring your response. You've responded, so now other interested parties in this thread can respond to you, and I can observe and see whether it plays out in a similar manner to the way it usually does.
Personally, I don't give a monkey's about the minutiae. I'm interested in the motives and methods of truthers*, not in the piddling trivia they choose to focus on.
*Mark F posted this in the Niels Harrit thread, and it's worth reproducing here:
Last edited:
What continues to confound me is reading the comments from what appear to be intelligent people who are educated and believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the towers were all taken down with CD and other fantastical beliefs. I realize that there is a distrust of gov because of the constant spinning and PR... and some outright lying.... such as the WMDs in Iraq. But how does not dismiss the fact that the US policies have given rise in many places and cases to insurgencies and what amounts to "blow back" and 9/11 was the mother of all blow back and it was entirely possibly. These people argue that it is impossible for the NSS not to have known the attack was coming, not to be able to stop in in progress, that it was impossible to fly the planes as they were into the targets that they hit and so on. Intelligent people simply acting like irrational idiots. It's science denial... and the inside job conspiracy makes no sense not to mention that not a single person has leaked yet this inside job must have involved hundreds if not thousands of actors in a completely un rehearsed never before done operation of the complexity that would boggle the mind. Ironically it was a very low tech attack that our bloated NSS was unable to do a thing about... and we have been living with a false sense of "security".
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
This was your claim,
This is the counter claim,
And your response was,
So do you still think the columns in the model were fixed in the x- and y- directions along their entire height?
This is the counter claim,
Seriously?Did you hope I would not open the report and read for myself??
Seriously???You really can't read, can you? Here, let me read out p484 NCSTAR 1-9 for ya:
"Displacement Boundary Conditions
The column nodes at the base of the 16 story model were fully fixed to model the rigidity of the grillage and foundation (Chapter 2). The top of the columns at Floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and ydirections, to prevent lateral displacements, and were free in the global z-direction, to allow vertical displacement of the columns in response to gravity loads and thermal expansion. The purpose of the ANSYS model was to simulate the accumulation of local damages and failures up to the initiation of overall global collapse due to fire. The building was not expected to displace significantly in the x- and y-directions outside of the floors with no fire and there was no interaction between adjacent columns for relatively small motions in the z-direction, due to limited load re-distribution mechanisms."
No other Displacement Boundary Conditions are mentioned, and since they explicitly state those for the bottom and the top of the 16-story assembly, I am sure you will agree with what I implied initially: the 16-story FEA model DOES reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen - on all floors except the very top and the very bottom. It would help your credibility to admit that the model does indeed reflect movement of all nodes on all the relevant floors (5-13 at least) in all spatial directions. If you go on denying or ignoring this FACT, this would serve to further undermine your credibility.
And your response was,
So do you still think the columns in the model were fixed in the x- and y- directions along their entire height?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
the LAN cable is a ground conductive path to ground. The chassis of the circuit borads is a conductive path to ground, a telephone line is a conducdive path to ground (oh that one could have told the squirrel that immolated himself jumping from the power lines hot(where he was safe to the telephone line just below the power line, on the street in front of my ex's parents house. We saw it happen and also heard the telephone chime,,, once, then it was dead along with the squirrel).
In 2001 there still would have been CRT monitors on office desks. CRTs routinely used 20KV supplies on the screen and smashing one was quite capable of starting a fire.
Then there is the hot material from WTC 1 which no one has shown any reason to believe could not reach WTC7.
However, in our countries it is quite within one's right to believe whatever fiction one wishes to believe, including thermite dust raining down and igniting office and vehicle fires and arson spooks entering office buildings.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
You have missed the context of my question.
You had previously claimed "Only failure modes in the East side of the building were modeled and the columns in the model were fixed in the x-y axis to prevent any lateral displacement", referencing p484 NCSTAR 1-9. I pointed out that your own reference explains that the columns were fixed in x- and y-directions only on top and bottom, and free to move in x- and y-directions everywhere in between, and that we can thus expect that all nodes in between WOULD move in x- and y- (and also z-) directions as fires heated elements differentially.
I said that this would happen in the NIST model as well as in reality.
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.
Since we do not know how far that node had moved east (we only know that it jhad moved east in the model) we cannot know whether 5.5" of expansion of the beam framing into the girder nearest to col 79 would have sufficed to make the girder walk off - but NIST tells us it did walk off. By acknowledging that the node was free to move laterally, which includes the possibility of it moving more than 3/4", you'd remove your claim that walk-off was impossible.
Now you make additional claim about how other nodes would react to other stresses - we can look into that later. Please answer my question, first, in context:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10519838#post10519838
I had also asked you:
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?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Naturally you can cite the requirements for this?
I know where you pulled this from........
The Gen-sets would not know the difference between an intentional loss or otherwise. They would need to be manually switched.
I'll gladly retract this if you show some proof of your statement.
I'll wait................
gmanontario
Muse
Ok I'm confused.
How did the gypsum dust put out or prevent the fires in WTC 7 almost 350 feet away but allow vehicles almost right beside the buildings to burn?
How did the gypsum dust put out or prevent the fires in WTC 7 almost 350 feet away but allow vehicles almost right beside the buildings to burn?
Last edited:
gmanontario
Muse
Dupe post
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Cars like to burn but building contents don't.................Ok I'm confused.
How did the gypsum dust put out or prevent the fires in WTC 7 almost 350 feet away but allow vehicles almost right beside the buildings to burn?
You're not confused.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Are you saying you actually think the north side of the North Tower where poor Edna Cintron was standing in the hole was still that hot when the building collapsed? If so, it doesn't sound like you have thought this through very thoroughly.
Last edited:
- Status