The Anomalies

a reply to: JuniorDisco

This is one of your 'tactics'? Can you really not see why almost nobody believes you? Why your ideas are little more than a laughing stock?

no....this is...it's called TRUTH....ya should try it sometime.


2008 NIST claims a BRAND new never before seen physics ANOMALY occurred ONLY on 9-11, where thermal expansion works at LOW TEMPS.....

and here is Shyam Sunder at the 2008 NIST Technical briefing stating so.......

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST Technical Briefing Webcast

to which he is claiming the found acceleration equal to g. seen for 105 vertical feet in WTC7 was caused by NEW science, that only occurred on 9-11.....


a claimed NEW science to hide the facts found by the earlier 2005 NIST scientific investigation......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

105 vertical feet where structural mass MUST disappear to have occur what we all see....

and new science is to blame.......new science they refuse to prove through science.

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."

.....just bully.

but you can change that here.....NOW, by PROVIDING evidence.

.....start by showing support for this NEW science from their peers, NOT from the authors pushing the claim, the ones whom peer reviewed the hidden data and replicated the SAME results.....

how bout you list them here and link to their papers.....

a reply to: hgfbob

Sunder doesn't claim this. You can erect all the straw men you like and then claim the slimmest of victories when nobody rides to their defence. But in the end you're just a guy in a little empty box shouting about how you're right. It's not exactly a triumph, put it that way.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Sunder doesn't claim this.

he is ON VIDEO stating that FACT!

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

You can erect all the straw men you like and then claim the slimmest of victories when nobody rides to their defence.

uhm.....I am the one with the match lighting your straw-men on fire.....and I see NO ONE riding to the defense with the firehose....but YOU with your pathetic 'WHY'gning.

not ONE link or reply refuting the information I post showing anything I posted is false.......all I get from both you and Cantoneer is pathetic misquotes and denials...

a reply to: hgfbob

He's on video saying that it was thermal expansion which caused the collapse. Thermal expansion which occurs at lower temperatures than the high ones associated with other events which might have initiated the fall.

I'll repeat this again, but I think you know it and are just pretending not to have made such a silly mistake.

Sunder is saying that the normal, well-understood phenomenon of thermal expansion can take place at relatively low temperatures. He is not referring to a new thing.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Sunder is saying that the normal, well-understood phenomenon of thermal expansion can take place at relatively low temperatures. He is not referring to a new thing.

then point to it elsewhere occurring BEFORE or AFTER 9-11 to a steel framed building....hell, ANY building for ANY reason......throughout the HISTORY of man!!!!!!!!

a collapse that mimics what we all see occur on 9-11..

come on....be the FIRST on your block.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Sunder is saying that the normal, well-understood phenomenon of thermal expansion can take place at relatively low temperatures. He is not referring to a new thing.

uhm...if it's "well understood"...it's NOT a 'phenomenon'.

phe·nom·e·non
noun
1.
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

WTC7 occurred 2.3 seconds, or 105 vertical feet of CONTINUOUS acceleration at a rate equal to g.
it did not have a natural collapse where the falling damaged debris causes further collapse....resistance was REMOVED so it could collapse.

WE SEE it is symmetrical, encompassing ALL
WE SEE it is unified....moving as one.

tell me how fire at one end of the building did all that work before 1.74 seconds....

a reply to: hgfbob

Because of course nothing happens that hasn't happened before.

a reply to: hgfbob

You're incorrect, a phenomenon can be completely understood. The usage you're pointing to is not the only one, as shown by the word "especially". You clearly have as much trouble understanding the dictionary as you do Sunder's words.

In any case you're just changing the subject. Sunder is saying that a perfectly normal and understood process felled the building. The fact that you keep misconstruing the most obvious statement means you're either unable to understand it or stubborn to the point where you think nobody will notice your basic error.

Either way nobody is going to fall for this other than a handful of other simpletons or zealots.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

You're incorrect, a phenomenon can be completely understood.

...then ESPLAIN it Lucy!!!!!

tell me all about the NEW phenomenon where thermal expansion works at LOW TEMPS to completely REMOVE resistance!!!!!

tell me how fire at ONE end of the building removed resistance GLOBALLY before 1.74 seconds.......

the authors of those claims REFUSE TO PROVE THEM....so why don't you.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

and this ...'PHENOMENON'..REMOVED...

105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support columns....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
office contents...
utilities....

from fire the 2005 NIST can't see from the windows....

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

Sunder is saying that a perfectly normal and understood process felled the building.

then why do t hey REFUSE to prove it through, VALIDATION, VERIFICATION, PEER REVIEW of their data as is done ANOTHER time a situation such as this....oh, and before you reply with...'there has never been a situation as this'....lol..OH yes little one, there have been many situations within science where peer review is necessary tool for the furtherment of understanding......except here huh!!!!

why is that......a never before seen collapse from fire we can't see either.....

originally posted by: hgfbob


...then ESPLAIN it Lucy!!!!!

You keep demanding I do things (quite rudely, it has to be said). Why should I bother? What do I owe you? And what will change if I don't?

If you want you can claim victory, I really don't care. And, crucially, neither does anybody else.

a reply to: hgfbob


Sorry, I'm lost. Do you want me to reply to you or not? What are you hoping to achieve? As I undesratnd it you are trying to annoy me enough to provide an answer that you say doesn't exist. But what you will do with that answer you cannot say.

That doesn't seem very worthwhile.

a reply to: hgfbob

So you have no views except that you "want your country back". Your only way of going about this is to demand that people like me provide you with answers that you then say you don't actually want. Your evidence gets stronger every day but somehow never persuades enough people to achieve your goals.

This isn't "the confused approach". I am genuinely confused. What do you want? How can I help you get it?

oh yea, the anomalies......where do I begin.....

lets start with the OFFICIAL CLAIM and work backwards.....

Congress charged NIST to scientifically find out HOW and WHY three buildings fell on 9-11

to which, they could NOT find a scientific reason why they did....impact object caused LITTLE structural damage to each tower, 14.5%, and NO supporting EVIDENCE the FIRES PRESENT failed ANY load bearing vertical support to ALLOW collapse to ensue....NOT the floors, the COLUMNS!

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

the 2005 NIST report is THEIR report of NOT finding scientific reason WHY these three buildings fell on 9-11.....the REASON NO official story pusher can DIRECTLY point to any SCIENCE WITHIN the 10,000+NIST report for supporting evidence.....they use duhbunking sites that TELL ALL what the reports REALLY mean....sure they do.

so they STALL for three years till the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew officially claims ..

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at the 2008 NIST webcast technical briefing


a new 'phenomenon of science they REFUSE to prove through science not only fell the towers, but WTC7 also.....with that being 105 vertical feet EQUAL to g.

why do they REFUSE to prove this NEW science of 'thermal expansion' that occurred at LOW TEMPS???

how does fire at ONE end of the building REMOVE ALL resistance globally including...

105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
office contents...
utilities....

FFA starts @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s, with ALL science demanding NO WORK can be done by mass accelerating EQUAL to g.

the collapse is NOT causing itself to collapse.....mass is removed in order TO collapse..[and NEW physics is tho blame that only occurred on 9-11].

so tell me how the fire we can't see REMOVED the required resistance BEFORE 1.74 seconds either all at once, or at the very least, globally and unified AHEAD of the collapse wave....

because the authors pushing the OFFICIAL CLAIMS refuse to prove their NEW science through science.

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."

a reply to: hgfbob

We're getting nowhere. But since I'm where I need to be and you aren't I'd say the tragedy is yours.

Best of luck with it, I doubt you'll be successful.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

We're getting nowhere.

YOU are getting NO where.....I am posting UNDENIABLE facts pertaining to the official claim PUSHED as truth.

besides, I am not talking to you, I am posting in a forum.

your problem is, there is a discrepancy of what YOU THINK an anomaly is....

"man talks about something "like" a cruise missile"

how about the 2005 NIST NOT finding a scientific reason for collapse x3.....

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

and a LATTER hypothesis crew in 2008 OFFICIALLY, after STALLING for three years, to officially claim "NEW science is to blame that ONLY occurred on 9-11....

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

and when asked to PROVE this phenomenon by the structural community, they REFUSE!

Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST

and all you can say is......'Best of luck with it, I doubt you'll be successful.'.....only with agenda-filled people such as yourself...someone I couldn't care less about convincing....cause yer here for an agenda.....not truth.

a reply to: hgfbob

You can't even work out what Sunder's statement means. No one is going to trust your "facts" if you can't parse a basic English sentence.

You're right that we're getting nowhere. But as I say, since I am where I want to be, it's you that has the work to do. And you manifestly lack the tools for that job.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

You can't even work out what Sunder's statement means. No one is going to trust your "facts" if you can't parse a basic English sentence.

You're right that we're getting nowhere. But as I say, since I am where I want to be, it's you that has the work to do. And you manifestly lack the tools for that job.

so you have been SAYING the entire time here......



...and saying...

...and saying......

...and saying.....

yet fail to show how.....

You're right that we're getting nowhere

uhm...YOU are getting "no where'....I am the one showing complicity....providing support to SHOW they are NOT my words.

you are denying my post and the information it contains by saying "I don't understand"......yet you offer NO clarification from the ABUNDANCE of sources you say are there.

saying I don't know means that YOU see something wrong........yet ya CAN'T seem to put it into words here huh.....to show me.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

so tell me ALL ABOUT this NEW phenomenon of thermal expansion that works at LOW TEMPS to REMOVE....

105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support columns....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
office contents...
utilities....

as ALL KNOWN SCIENCE states must occur BEFORE 1.74 seconds to allow the CONSTANT global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. @ 1.75s to 4.0s.

a reply to: hgfbob

I understand the collapse to my satisfaction. I just don't understand what your trying to achieve or your methods. They seem guaranteed to fail.