University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fire

mike2810 · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

camlok said:
I don't have a "missile analysis". More of your spurious mud slinging. That's all you USGOCT conspiracy theorists are is mud slingers. Note well that you NEVER provide any of your "experts" because there aren't any for the USOCT conspiracy theory.

Let's discuss all the totally nutty things that your expert, Frank Greening, has advanced. I posted them, mike, but it seems like none of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists want to discuss them. Why?

You make no sense. No use discussing anything further till you give an honest answer to questions asked.

camlok · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

mike2810 said:
You make no sense. No use discussing anything further till you give an honest answer to questions asked.

mike's go to escape when he is up a stump.

mike2810 · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

camlok said:
mike's go to escape when he is up a stump.

Why don't you answer the questions asked.

zyzygy · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

mike2810 said:
Why don't you answer the questions asked.

He's fooling nobody but himself. His go to position is not to answer questions.

camlok · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

zyzygy said:
He's fooling nobody but himself. His go to position is not to answer questions.

Another zero evidence post, zyzygy. And to boot, you show your stunning hypocrisy as you never answer any questions.

camlok · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

mike2810 said:
Why don't you answer the questions asked.

You are lying, mike. Go back to the previous page and count how many of your questions I answered.

I'll count yours - zero.

Now let's discuss the crazy things your "expert" has put forward, mike.

Are you aware that your expert believes/knows the molten steel

=====================

Sorry Dr. Greening et al

Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng – Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineer.

...

Then we have his explanation for the molten metal which was seen to pour from the towers. Dr. Greening postulates that the enormous levels of heat required to melt a section of steel columns could have been allowed by the presence of oxygen from the tanks and generators in the aircraft. On this occasion he goes into some creditable research and detail of the mechanisms which would be required for this oxygen to become available and concentrated in the area of the observed molten metal.

However, he fails to realise, or perhaps simply ignores the simple fact that a fire requires fuel as well as oxygen. Although he may have posed an explanation for the continuous supply of oxygen to a concentrated discrete spot, he makes no mention and poses no explanation for the continuous supply of fuel to the same concentrated discrete spot. In the absence of such a supply we would not have a fire and there would be no heat input. On the contrary, the expansion of the oxygen would cause a drop in temperature. So we have the situation that Dr. Greening in attempting to find an explanation for the hot spot from whence we see the molten metal, has actually inadvertently stumbled across a far more plausible explanation for the cold spot, identified by NIST, in the same general area.

How much more wrong is it possible to be?

Ibid

mike2810 · Oct 21, 2017

From Post 41

"WTC7

From the project study web site:

"Consider that on the morning of September 11, 2001, two jets were flown into WTC 1 and WTC 2 in a coordinated act of terrorism. At 8:46 A.M. Eastern Time, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north face of WTC 1. At 9:03 A.M., United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south face of WTC 2. Soon after, these two buildings collapsed, WTC 2 at 9:59 A.M. and WTC 1 at 10:28 A.M"

cam. do you disagree with the above quoted statement from the UAF WTC7 project web site? You did not answer.
If you do, then what other lies might the WTC7 study present.

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7" for a total of "Project Budget: $316,153"

do you disagree that Gage has a great deal of say where AE911T funding goes? You did not answer

So of all of your posts on this thread while you may have responded you did not answer the questions. You rarely if ever do.

Prove me wrong. Show me where you answered the questions asked.

mike2810 · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

camlok said:
You are lying, mike. Go back to the previous page and count how many of your questions I answered.

I'll count yours - zero.

Now let's discuss the crazy things your "expert" has put forward, mike.

Are you aware that your expert believes/knows the molten steel

=====================

Sorry Dr. Greening et al

Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng – Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineer.

...

Then we have his explanation for the molten metal which was seen to pour from the towers. Dr. Greening postulates that the enormous levels of heat required to melt a section of steel columns could have been allowed by the presence of oxygen from the tanks and generators in the aircraft. On this occasion he goes into some creditable research and detail of the mechanisms which would be required for this oxygen to become available and concentrated in the area of the observed molten metal.

However, he fails to realise, or perhaps simply ignores the simple fact that a fire requires fuel as well as oxygen. Although he may have posed an explanation for the continuous supply of oxygen to a concentrated discrete spot, he makes no mention and poses no explanation for the continuous supply of fuel to the same concentrated discrete spot. In the absence of such a supply we would not have a fire and there would be no heat input. On the contrary, the expansion of the oxygen would cause a drop in temperature. So we have the situation that Dr. Greening in attempting to find an explanation for the hot spot from whence we see the molten metal, has actually inadvertently stumbled across a far more plausible explanation for the cold spot, identified by NIST, in the same general area.

How much more wrong is it possible to be?

Ibid

Your amazing how you bounce all over the place. The "molten" whatever that came from the tower has been explained.

Once again you post something without the link to the source. Did it come from one of your favorite blogs?

camlok · Oct 21, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

mike2810 said:
Your[sic] amazing how you bounce all over the place. The "molten" whatever that came from the tower has been explained.

No, you conspiracy theorists have never explained it. You have fled from every discussion of it.

Molten metal, unachievable in an atmospheric burn, is seen pouring from the tower prior to collapse and remains unexplained by the official accounts.

Immediately prior to and during the collapse there are flashes of bright white light and changes to the colour and character of the smoke occurring in a distinct, logical and meaningful pattern on the corners of the towers‘ perimeter structure. Each of these exact same areas became major seats of failure during the collapse. Thermite reactions are accompanied by white smoke and flashes of bright white light. - Gordon Ross

Ibid

mike2810 said:
Once again you post something without the link to the source. Did it come from one of your favorite blogs?

I did link, which would have made no difference for you USGOCT conspiracy theorists won't read anything that causes you cognitive dissonance, and since you know the USGOCT is all lies, the truth causes you all great cognitive dissonance.

Seemingly you're ignorant of writing protocol. A little hint for you, mike, look up 'Ibid'.

Thoreau72 · Oct 22, 2017

It is impossible to defend and indefensible proposition, but like Sisyphus, those who defend the OCT just keep on keeping on, like the Energizer Bunny. :lol:

camlok · Oct 22, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

mike2810 said:
The "molten" whatever that came from the tower has been explained.

How "scientific" of you, mike, "molten" whatever!

mike2810 · Oct 22, 2017

Re: University of Alaska finds NIST report is wrong: WTC7 did not collapse due to fir

Interesting discussion on a different forum

Feng Fu is a member on the Structural Engineering Institute's Disproportionate Collapse Technical Committee, which committee is tasked by the ASCE with designing code guidelines concerning alternative path resistance and disproportionate collapse mitigation. His studies and books looked at the failure of the towers, wtc7 and other major buildings. He noted the damage by falling debris and fire as the cause of WTC7 failure.

Disproportionate Collapse Mitigation Of Building Structures Standards | ASCE
https://www.crcpress.com/Structural...roportionate-Collapse/Fu/p/book/9781498706797

Weidlinger to Present at 2015 ASCE/SEI Structures Congress - PR.com

https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=CkhaTUEAAAAJ&hl=de&oi=sra

http://www.thomastelford.com/books/SampleChapters/Progressive collapse intro.pdf

Professional engineers looking at WTC 1,2,7 , and other buildings that failed to find ways to improve design and safety. Main point creditable engineers who are looking at the collapses due to damage and fire, not controlled demolition and how to improve building safety.