I did all the math once upon a time, the top actually began to arrest, it was going to stop, then a series of explosions pulverized the top, at the same time they lit up the floors immediately below and down it came. Of course NIST couldnt find molten steel if it were pouring out of their asses, we certainly cant expect them to analyse something so simple as that since their duties were finished after telling us "columns failed"! Yeh a little facetious.
I did all the math once upon a time, the top actually began to arrest, it was going to stop, then a series of explosions pulverized the top, at the same time they lit up the floors immediately below and down it came. Of course NIST couldnt find molten steel if it were pouring out of their asses, we certainly cant expect them to analyse something so simple as that since their duties were finished after telling us "columns failed"! Yeh a little facetious. oops had a net burp
The German mathematician Ansgar Schneider actually did the math. He proved mathematically that even if Zdeněk Bažant's theory is accepted as valid (it has multiple flaws), the "collapse" of the tower would have decelerated substantially and arrested. See post #363 in this thread. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1910/1910.10801.pdf
As expected, the Appeal to NIST's response to the Request for Correction has been submitted. I'm guessing this will eventually end up in the courts because this is all an obvious coverup. 9/11 Families, Experts Appeal Federal Agency Decision on Building 7 Report “The explanations given by NIST for its decision to deny our request are preposterous and totally avoid addressing our arguments,” said Ted Walter, spokesperson for the 9/11 families and AE911Truth. “Our hope now is that NIST’s associate director for laboratory programs, James Olthoff, will reverse this egregious decision and have the report revised.” The appeal submitted late yesterday alleges that NIST’s decision to deny the request is “demonstrably in error and fails to provide a response to most of the relevant data quality arguments contained in the request.” Among other things, the appeal takes aim at NIST’s refusal to study a melted piece of steel from Building 7 on the flimsy grounds that the steel cannot be confirmed as coming from Building 7 — an excuse the appeal calls “brazenly unscientific.” The appeal also targets NIST’s refusal to perform new computer simulations that would include a structural feature NIST now admits was excluded from the modeling. AE911Truth argues that including this structural feature would have prevented the failure that NIST claims initiated the collapse. “They are refusing to conduct new analyses that they know they should, and their justifications are beyond absurd,” said Richard Gage, AIA, architect and founder of AE911Truth. Administrative Appeal https://www.ae911truth.org/nist
The DOJ has already demonstrated how it handles petitions seeking the truth from government agencies. The administrative law judge in charge of NIST matters will follow suit.
Given your posts on the subject, that's understandable. Do you actually have anything intelligent to post or just your need to inform the readers that you're clueless (most of us were long aware of that fact)?
In a way I have to agree with Shinebox but regarding the presentation ...... NOT the factual content! I felt the same about Hulsey with his presentation, as he was the same. Both are not articulate enough and their presentations not very well planned but for some reason seem to feel that as their name is on the 'top line' they should give any presentation. The result is unfortunately a 'confusing mess' as a result but, as I said it does not detract from the facts but you then have to put them together in a logical format.
Some points. First neither Richard Gage nor Leroy Hulsey are accomplished public speakers, they are both experts in their respective fields and that doesn't always translate to clarity for the lay public. Second, the title of this particular presentation is "9/11: An Architect's Guide", which means of course, it's directed at architects and not necessarily geared for the non-architect. Third, Hulsey is an engineering professor at UAF and has been in that position for many years. I'm quite sure his students understand him well enough to be able to succeed in the courses he teaches and the two students who worked with him on the WTC7 projects both were able to receive their doctorates partly on that basis. Much of what both Gage and Hulsey present in videos is available in peer reviewed papers which are highly technical in scope and detail. These are also not necessarily for the lay person but any reasonably intelligent and educated person should be able to understand the gist of all these studies and the significance of the conclusions. And finally, if Shinebox was truly an engineer as he claims to be, this should all be within the scope of his alleged expertise yet he was the first to claim it's a "confusing mess" to him. I'm not an architect or an engineer and I have only taken 1 semester of engineering before switching my major to mathematics about 5 decades ago but none of it comes off as a "confusing mess" to me. In fact it's all highly illuminating. But that's just me. IF Shinebox was truly an engineer, it's only a "confusing mess" to him because he refuses to face the facts about the science of 9/11 or is outright in wholesale denial. I've said this many times, no one needs to be an expert to arrive at the conclusion that the twin towers and WTC7 were all destroyed via controlled demolition, this is just plain common sense once one pays attention to the videos of their destruction and examines the overwhelming evidence. I came to the conclusion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition the instant I first saw the video back in 2005. The same was true for the twin towers after I saw the video called "9/11 Mysteries" although I was already highly suspicious prior to that. This was well before I ever heard of Richard Gage.
I must agree with your analysis. I have supported AE911 since they began, and will continue. For me this is essentially old news. I've known for years it was an inside job and that the official narrative fails at every turn. I've known for years that the preponderance of the facts and evidence contradict the official narrative, and that the government goes to great lengths to suppress the truth. So it's not really a confusing mess for me, it is just one more example of the government and media pushing a narrative that is impossible, a false narrative.
BOB ........"Some points. First neither Richard Gage nor Leroy Hulsey are accomplished public speakers, they are both experts in their respective fields and that doesn't always translate to clarity for the lay public." That is why I said I found their respective presentations very poor when you consider the audience they are addressing! They needed someone who could present the case but not necessarily is an expert on the subject. I understood what he was saying but I have an engineering background and a good handle of Physics. To the ordinary man in the street watching that ..... he/she would soon lose interest and the opportunity would be lost to get the message across.
Again, the audience Richard Gage is addressing architects and he is an architect. Leroy Hulsey has addressed attorneys in a presentation made 2 years ago and they are not technical but understood his presentation without a problem. First, it's difficult if not impossible for a non-technical person to explain technical intricacies to non-technical people. It also does not make a whole lot of sense. Second, I seriously doubt the above is true for most who have any interest. It's possible some may lose interest as to the technical details which may escape them but the heart of the message? Not a chance if they have any genuine interest. But again, this is a poster who claims to have an engineering background and claims it's a "confusing mess", not a lay person.
I'm only happy to contribute although this is difficult to watch as Gage is all over the place here, not only is his fumbling presentation but also his omissions and context ... for example, why at about the 32 min mark does he focus on (his own?) yellow highlighted points and not complete what NIST actually said? ... that's dishonest not to complete the context and address it ... indeed the collapses started at the impact points of the aircraft so why does he not address that? ... because it does not fit his narrative Bob ... I see you still like to attack my credentials in other posts without acknowledging that I am a MECHANICAL engineer and am therefore a lay person (like yourself) when it comes to structural collapses ... however, as a mechanical engineer, I can explain the many pieces of equipment that can "explode" in an event such as the aircraft strikes on the towers which is something YOU ignore because it doesn't fit YOUR narrative of what witnesses heard ... I made it through about 40 minutes of a very poor presentation thus far ... please tell me why I should continue watching this tripe ...
So to validate your claim I presume you have a peer reviewed list of all that equipment that you are claiming exploded and the evidential damage those explosions caused for us to examine yes? Please link us to it.
With some very rare exceptions, you have never contributed anything worthwhile or even intelligent in terms of any 9/11 discussion. The extent of your "intelligent contribution" is your prolific use of the childish/idiotic term "troofer". But if that makes you "happy", at least it makes you happy. So why did you bother? I can understand that. He's not a great speaker and there is an incredible of information he wants to relay to architects within a reasonable time constraint. You are not an architect so it's above your pay grade anyway. The video shows exactly what NIST said. Anyone can pause the video and read it in its entirety. Gage did not hide anything and did address what NIST wrote. First, there is only one narrative, it's the official one which incorporates NIST's narrative. Second, it's NIST's narrative that Gage addresses and contradicts. Third, there was no "collapse" that started at the impact point of the aircraft, that is exactly NIST's narrative, not Gage's. The tower did not "collapse", it was blown beginning at the impact point and every 2nd or 3rd floor was blown out top down at approximately 2/3 G acceleration. The portion above the impact point disintegrated in mid-air, likely using the same mechanism. This is very clear from the video evidence. The timing was impeccable and the initiating point looks to have been very well coordinated. Like I said, a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition. There are only about 5 controlled demolition companies in the world that can accomplish that. In a just world all of them should undergo a thorough criminal investigation. You claim to be a mechanical engineer. I am not an engineer but I do know that all engineers must have a working knowledge of physics. You show a very serious lack of knowledge in basic physics so yes I question that you have any engineering background. I only had one semester of engineering but I did have to take Physics 101 as part of that major. I also took basic physics in high school. Basic physics is a settled and universally accepted and applied science, it may not explain everything because man's knowledge is still relatively primitive but it does explain a lot. And one particular thing physics can and does explain is that massive steel frame high rises cannot completely "collapse" into the path of their own structure at free fall or near free fall with no discernible hesitation as a result of planes, damage, fire or any combination. It's something that not only physics can explain is IMPOSSIBLE but also common sense should be able to explain. Additionally, nothing can duplicate what a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition can do (i.e. cause that very event to happen) to a massive steel frame high rise tower, much less 3 of them in one day. Again, just plain common sense, no expertise required to understand and absorb such a simple concept. Not only do you not grasp the scientific/physics impossibility, you don't even have the common sense to grasp it. You claim to believe this is all possible and your response to anyone who believes it's impossible, including experts who are well versed in science, especially physics, is to call them "troofer". I don't have any narrative either. Again, the only narrative is the official 9/11 narrative. I can explain what explodes as Bob. These are called EXPLOSIVES. They are not only supported by the video and audio evidence, but they also supported and corroborated by over 150 eyewitnesses who claim to have heard, seen, felt, been injured by and killed by these explosions. It's something YOU want to ignore or pretend it's anything but explosives, the most likely cause in a controlled demolition. Given all your posts on this subject and your characterization of the presentation as "tripe", I ask again, why did you even bother? Nothing will ever change your mind about the official 9/11 fairy tale where what is scientifically and logically impossible is not only possible in that fantasy made for children but is accepted as fact despite no supporting evidence of any kind and despite the overwhelming contradictory evidence.
Im not sure why you waste your time peddling frivolous claims you cant back up. Reading again isnt going to help you produce evidence you clearly dont have.
the comedy value is the key to this section of the forum ... but the crazy Uncle jokes get old after awhile and people leave the table to have a brandy and tell Trump jokes ... I know you love the word "posture" ... it has become a meme with you ... sorry, but old and lame ...
You mean showing the world your ignorance on the subject and proving it with the increased tritium as tested on the first round wasn't good enough for you? you want to go another round thinking the result is any different now than it was then? There's an old saying about insanity that's when someone does the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result. Just because it's outside your knowledge base and understanding and for that matter lot of other people doesn't mean its not the case. Before you get into complex issues like nuclear physics you would be far better served to understand the basic mechanics of collapse compared to a demolition. I highly recommend that you look up the laws of the conservation of energy.
Clearly you are ignorant on allof those subjects you claim to know so much about. There is no evidence of controlled demo on 911 and the collapse of all the buildings including seven were not indicitive of controlled demo
