Thanks for your opinion, but when you express it over and over again ad nauseum it starts to present as a desperate plea to be taken seriously.
Ive seen no 'rational' explanation in ANY thread for global structural failure and freefall other than by demolition.
So then there is not one single paper written by credentialed experts who have refuted "everything" and you made that up. What are you talking about? You haven't posted anything but I certainly do understand why.
Well you just posted in it, does that help? Thank you for sharing your level of understanding and your opinion. Here's a question for you, just the North Tower: 45,000 tons is one estimate of the falling section. Now you insist it's dropping at freefall, so how much kinetic energy do you figure it has after falling for 2 seconds?
I wasn't responding to your post, are you Shinebox's attorney? I'm pretty sure Shinebox is fully capable of speaking for himself.
I think if you reread what I posted it explains it. But technically you are correct. There is not one SINGLE paper. There's the two I came in with that you basically ignored. There's Weidlinger there's NIST. Calm down, yes I have. Three reports. I also posted one about explosives and you ignored that one as well.
"It doesn't matter who you think your posts are "aimed at". Everyone in this forum is free to read all posts written by anyone in this forum." - Bob0267.
So you didn't like the question? The North Tower had an estimated 45,000 tons on the falling section. How much kinetic energy do you figure it had after falling for 2 seconds?
Yeh now we have invisible reports! Please stop telling people to calm down, that is nonsense, you cant determine anyones emotional state from text.
Well no. We don't. I'm sure Bob can cast his memory back to where I came into this thread and recall the two I posted. Weidlinger isn't "invisible", though if you don't understand it, it may as well have been. You actually argued with me about it! Well when they start swearing etc. it's a fair indication they are not calm. I'm sure it's not against the rules. So, about the kinetic energy of the North Tower, what did you come up with?
That's not an answer to my question. But it does indicate you have no answer and you just came up with a point that makes no sense.
I haven't read anything you posted written by experts that refutes everything because you have never posted any such thing. That's because no such thing exists, you made that up. Yes that's what I said. I ignored no such thing. I've been posting about NIST for years and I recently posted a bit more detail about the Weidlinger study. Neither of these refute everything because there is no such thing. In fact as I posted from Hulsey's study, Weidlinger agrees with Hulsey and both contradict NIST in one major aspect and prove NIST's hypothesis impossible. Hulsey proves both NIST and Weidlinger's hypotheses impossible (as well as the Arup/Nordenson collaboration). Not to mention the evidence proves all but Hulsey's hypothesis impossible (see below). You never posted anything about explosives that refutes everything, what are you talking about? And, what does that have to with you speaking for Shinebox?
Do you think you can help out with the 3 citations I have given to you You aren't being harassed. You are being asked on topic questions. YOU began the line of "rational" and I responded that it was in my thread. You even reiterated it in post 354.
Yes I did Bob and your opinion on what is refuted doesn't count. It is still refuted whether you agree it or not. It was only a couple of weeks ago Bob, surely you haven't forgotten. In this very thread. And I said you were correct, there isn't a single report, there are more than the one. Well yes you did, you said you were going to read them. You certainly have! Hmmm, need my slide-rule to understand that sentence. No, they are just all variations on a theme with insufficient data. Nope. He just makes a few scant references to them. His opinion doesn't supersede other experts. I saw below and your opinion is noted. Yes I did, you took great pains to cast a barrage of ad hominem at the author. I have every right to post what I wish within the rules. Or is it just you that gets to do that?
I know what it means. If you think me offering a means to establish a rational for the building collapse when you specifically said you couldn't see one, is harassment then you probably need to take a short break and think about it. If you genuinely cannot see any rational, understanding the amount of energy in the falling section will certainly assist you in trying to find one. There were no demolition charges, no means to place them, no evidence for anyone doing so, no paper or electronic trail, no audible explosions on any collapse video and the idea that a large team of experts could be recruited to kill thousands of people is a ludicrous suggestion.
I can say the same about you, your opinion that you posted expert studies that refute everything doesn't count. The bigger problem is no such thing exists. You are unqualified to make that claim, you are not an expert. The 4 (2 in collaboration) major engineering studies contradict each other using available data (and in NIST's case concocted data). Those "scant references" are the result of a 4-year study. You have not produced a link to any expert study that challenges Hulsey's study. Hulsey proves the 3 major studies result in impossible hypotheses using the available data. No expert study exists that disproves or even challenges Hulsey's study. It was open for peer review and no one challenged his study. Every single engineer or other qualified expert on the planet had the chance to do so and still do. Since it remains unchallenged It is the de facto standard by definition unless and until another peer reviewed expert study proves otherwise.
Keep clicking on the up arrow to the right of the word "said" until you find the question. Jeeeez Shiner, after all these years you still haven't figured how to follow a discussion?
That is one of the curious things about this incident. Even if I believed that the top of the North Tower could fall straight down and destroy everything below I think I would still have expected "experts" to have discussed the distribution of steel many times within the first few years after 9/11. So we are stuck with a bizarre social-psychological issue that is dragging on in bizarre ways. How long can the delusion go on?
I don't need to know anything about "ear-witnesses" to a massive burning building hit by a jet liner. I just need to know what normally occurs in a building fire and there you have alternative and far more feasible explanations for loud noises, whatever the people who heard them think they are. Not only can you say it, you frequently do. And as I have informed you many times, I don't care about any of your opinions. Yes it does. See what I did there? You can keep on making your opinion heard all you like, but it doesn't suddenly become true. Weidlinger's was quite large too. That's the thing with inexact science, expert's often disagree. The scant references you refer to are absent of any sufficient fire modelling. Weidlinger was aimed at this, as was NIST. Time for a non-reinvention of the wheel: Somebody under the Szamboti name discussing this HERE "No one has shown that collapse would not initiate in the NIST scenario given the addition of the side plates or any other structural element omitted by NIST. Hulsey and Arup specifically tested alternative scenarios and found, in those alternative scenarios, there would be side plate trapping (and I'm being generous by characterizing Hulsey's conclusions to date as actual findings, given that his approach to local connection failures seemingly makes little sense). (Arup also found that in several of those alternative scenarios, the girder still failed after the side plate trapping.) But no one--not you, not Hulsey, not Arup, not Weidlinger--has recreated NIST's comprehensive model of the first 16 floors of WTC7 and tested, as NIST did, how the observed fires--acting in an actual progression scenario--would damage those floors. Reducing the problem to merely being whether the girder moves against the side plate at a certain point in time under a specific set of conditions does nothing to undermine NIST's report unless you show that also happens under NIST's scenario, taking into account the fire progression and the damage in the surrounding area." Ibid. "Again, Tony, you are ignoring the complexity of the situation. If the girder initially expanded, it could have pushed column 79 south. And, as has been pointed out to you, we don't know how much of the expansion of the A2001 pushed the north exterior column to the north. We don't know how much column 79 sagged. We don't know how much column 79 bent laterally. We don't know how the failure/buckling of nearby beams caused the loads in the area to be redistributed. We don't know how the failures on other floors affected column 79. We don't know how the uneven heating of A2001 itself affected the way it expanded (your posts treat that girder as if were a uniform temperature). We don't know how the incredible heating in the floor system above and around A2001 affected it as that floor itself shifted in a complex way." You mean somebody should actually study his study? This non-peer-reviewed document that has major problems you ignored? No he doesn't. You just said that literally two lines ago. An absence of peer reviews isn't an absence of challenge, it denotes no interest in conspiracy crap! Haha, did you say "it remains unchallenged"? https://www.quora.com/Does-the-WTC-...t-the-cause-of-the-collapse-as-NIST-purported "The Hulsey report is a rather fascinating piece of work and, to me, comes across as a student’s final-year project where they’re up against an inflexible deadline and spend the last 2 days throwing anything into the mix in a desperate attempt to get it before their reviewer. Initially it had the makings of an interesting document. The three objectives of the study were: 1. Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001 2. Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse 3. Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. Of course, what was obvious upon first reading, was that there was a guiding hand behind this document introducing controlled demolition “evidence” and familiar buzzwords early on and simply attacking previous studies before proposing a new fantasy conclusion. Hot corrosion and the mythical Thermate were even brought up in the introduction. Ultimately the study failed to meet any of its objectives and simply became a hole-picking exercise in others’ reports. Its simplified conclusion became, “with our limited budget, in order for us to get our rough model to match the bit of the collapse we could see on the TV, we found that removing all the structural columns in an instant worked rather well. Therefore, that’s what must have happened.” Of course it failed to even hypothesise how that could be done, silently, secretly, on live tv, without leaving any evidence, to a building predicted to fall and having been given a drop zone. It’s rather telling that at the 11th International Conference on Structures in Fire – 2020 a paper was presented discussing the 4 hypotheses for the collapse of 7WTC. THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 7: REVISITED, no mention was made of the Hulsey report. It’s rather a shame. Maybe AE911Truth’s statement was just too close to the bone, “Conduct sophisticated computer modelling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition controlled more readily replicates the observed destruction.”" MAJOR CRITIQUE HERE! Then there's this list that just gets arm-waved away: And a major critique sent to AE911 public comments that was NEVER posted on public comments - go figure! https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/comments-oy-on-hulsey-draft-pdf.40041/
Quoting this off topic post in your own thread: Michael Hezarkhani Yes. It does indeed. But if you insist on using 10th generation copies for your "analysis" and fail to determine what the building actually is, then you're going to get erroneous conclusions. Here is the building on the zoomed out footage: So damn right! The wing does go behind the building - still laughing? Or are you going to concede your mistake? Just that tiny section is so very symptomatic of the garbage produced by "Ace" Baker! By drawing red lines incorrectly on images. They are identical. Since the person who is "paying out" the money "decides" if it is real, it isn't even a remotely valid offer: 9:02:24am - 9:05:20am / WTC-1 & 2 S Faces, WTC-2 E Face / Raw Video by Michael Hezarkhani - YouTube
