Govt now murdering 9-11 truthers and witnesses

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're next, twoofer!

They have your IP and they're coming to get you!

I'm pretty sure I saw black helicopters flying in his direction.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nope, I have an engineering background, I understand strengths of materials and the unique design of building 7. Given the loads, the damage and the effect of the fires on one third of the floors the findings are all credible from an engineering standpoint in my opinion.

I also have an engineering background, and I have the drawings for the building, and I totally disagree with your analysis, and I made the video, so I know it to be accurate, I checked.

How did you calculate the stresses on the cantilevered trusses and what factor of safety did you use?

 

[SAYIT]

kill Truthers?

why would the govt. want to do that?

9-11 Truth has failed, its a dead movement.

You only kill people when they are a threat. These guys aren't a threat...but a joke.

Dickie Gage goes around the country telling people that 9/11 was an inside job. He's still walking, talking, and raking in $85,000 per year from the Dupes.

Some obscure woman says she heard bombs in the basement, so the govt runs her over with a car.

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

Or, as is the case with our board CTs, sometimes they are just born.

 

[gerrycan]

Nope, I have an engineering background, I understand strengths of materials and the unique design of building 7. Given the loads, the damage and the effect of the fires on one third of the floors the findings are all credible from an engineering standpoint in my opinion.

I also have an engineering background, and I have the drawings for the building, and I totally disagree with your analysis, and I made the video, so I know it to be accurate, I checked.

How did you calculate the stresses on the cantilevered trusses and what factor of safety did you use?

We used all the values from the structural drawings, unlike NIST we used the proper dimensions from the drawings and included all the elements, and then we had a finite element analysis done. What "cantilevered trusses" are you meaning, the wind girders maybe? This is the girder that runs from column 79 to 44.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I also have an engineering background, and I have the drawings for the building, and I totally disagree with your analysis, and I made the video, so I know it to be accurate, I checked.

How did you calculate the stresses on the cantilevered trusses and what factor of safety did you use?

We used all the values from the structural drawings, unlike NIST we used the proper dimensions from the drawings and included all the elements, and then we had a finite element analysis done. What "cantilevered trusses" are you meaning, the wind girders maybe? This is the girder that runs from column 79 to 44.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[49] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[13]

The unique design and use of cantilever beams and trusses made WTC7 vulnerable to failure from an uncontrolled fire. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. That was enough to overload the rest of the structure and since it did not have sufficient redundancy in the design it initiated the collapse. From that point onwards it was unstoppable.

 

[Peterf]

I have always believed the government was behind 9/11. Nothing has ever changed my mind, its just a gut feeling I have always had.

I don't think Australia really exists.

Nothing has ever changed my mind, its just a gut feeling I have always had.

I have always believed that nobody south of the Equator has any brains at all. Nothing has ever changed my mind, its just a gut feeling I have always had.

People in Australia are permanently upside down. They can only relieve that strange gut feeling by standing on their heads. Show them a little sympathy.

I will apply to the Swedish government for my anti-Truther shill payment. But first I will have to find a translation of 'shill' into Swedish.

 

[Gamolon]

Nope, I have an engineering background, I understand strengths of materials and the unique design of building 7. Given the loads, the damage and the effect of the fires on one third of the floors the findings are all credible from an engineering standpoint in my opinion.

I also have an engineering background, and I have the drawings for the building, and I totally disagree with your analysis, and I made the video, so I know it to be accurate, I checked.

Accurate? Here is a screenshot of one part of your video:


Can you explain how your "explanation" using the screenshot above matches what NIST claims happened? Here is an analysis picture of what NIST found when doing their calculations:


Can you please point out in NIST's paper where they claim the beam fell because the flange failed?

Can you provide a couple of screen shots from your computer analysis? Did you include shear studs on the beam between 79 and 44 in your analysis?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nope, I have an engineering background, I understand strengths of materials and the unique design of building 7. Given the loads, the damage and the effect of the fires on one third of the floors the findings are all credible from an engineering standpoint in my opinion.

I also have an engineering background, and I have the drawings for the building, and I totally disagree with your analysis, and I made the video, so I know it to be accurate, I checked.

Accurate? Here is a screenshot of one part of your video:


Can you explain how your "explanation" using the screenshot above matches what NIST claims happened? Here is an analysis picture of what NIST found when doing their calculations:


Can you please point out in NIST's paper where they claim the beam fell because the flange failed?

Can you provide a couple of screen shots from your computer analysis? Did you include shear studs on the beam between 79 and 44 in your analysis?

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

 

[bodecea]

Govt has little choice i guess. The controlled media is, as always, completely on their side but the internet is decidedly not. The net continues to expose the preposterousness of the official story and murder is really the only weapon our govt has to fight the truthers.

PressTV - US continues to gag, murder 9/11 truth-seekers

Oct 11, 2013 5:30AM

Is the US government using assault, intimidation, even murder - and killing free speech worldwide - to cover up the insider crimes of September 11th, 2001?

One of the leading scientists challenging the US government's version of 9/11, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, has gone on the record charging 9/11 cover-up forces with a series of murders and attempted murders - including attempts on his own life. And information sciences expert Elizabeth Woodworth has published evidence that the National Security Agency (or some other agency with similar capabilities) has been jamming the Internet to prevent 9/11 evidence from reaching a wider public.

In a recent interview on my radio show, Dr. Grabbe, a physics professor with a Ph.D. from Cal Tech, described a series of attempts on his life that followed the publication of his 2011 book National Swindle of the World Trade Center. (Dr. Grabbe has also published pro-9/11-truth articles in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and other peer-reviewed scholarly journals.)

Referring to his new book Anatomy of Mass Murders, Dr. Grabbe said: "I'm not just referring to the murders that occurred on 9/11, but also the unexplained murders of both 9/11 witnesses and truth-seekers: Michael Doran, David Graham, Bertha Champagne … and the interesting thing is, Bertha Champagne and Nancy Hamilton both had unexplained deaths from automobiles running over them. And the thing that made me a believer, is that when I published my first book in 2011, there were unexplained, strange attempts to hit me with an automobile. It was just unbelievable! I'm not a 9/11 witness or anything; I'm just a physicist showing that nothing supports the official version of 9/11."

^ The New Face of the Right Wing.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Govt has little choice i guess. The controlled media is, as always, completely on their side but the internet is decidedly not. The net continues to expose the preposterousness of the official story and murder is really the only weapon our govt has to fight the truthers.

PressTV - US continues to gag, murder 9/11 truth-seekers

Oct 11, 2013 5:30AM

Is the US government using assault, intimidation, even murder - and killing free speech worldwide - to cover up the insider crimes of September 11th, 2001?

One of the leading scientists challenging the US government's version of 9/11, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, has gone on the record charging 9/11 cover-up forces with a series of murders and attempted murders - including attempts on his own life. And information sciences expert Elizabeth Woodworth has published evidence that the National Security Agency (or some other agency with similar capabilities) has been jamming the Internet to prevent 9/11 evidence from reaching a wider public.

In a recent interview on my radio show, Dr. Grabbe, a physics professor with a Ph.D. from Cal Tech, described a series of attempts on his life that followed the publication of his 2011 book National Swindle of the World Trade Center. (Dr. Grabbe has also published pro-9/11-truth articles in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and other peer-reviewed scholarly journals.)

Referring to his new book Anatomy of Mass Murders, Dr. Grabbe said: "I'm not just referring to the murders that occurred on 9/11, but also the unexplained murders of both 9/11 witnesses and truth-seekers: Michael Doran, David Graham, Bertha Champagne … and the interesting thing is, Bertha Champagne and Nancy Hamilton both had unexplained deaths from automobiles running over them. And the thing that made me a believer, is that when I published my first book in 2011, there were unexplained, strange attempts to hit me with an automobile. It was just unbelievable! I'm not a 9/11 witness or anything; I'm just a physicist showing that nothing supports the official version of 9/11."

^ The New Face of the Right Wing.

You believe the imbeciles that say George Bush & Dick Cheney orchestrated the events of 9/11 and are now killing people are right wing???

 

[Gamolon]

I also have an engineering background, and I have the drawings for the building, and I totally disagree with your analysis, and I made the video, so I know it to be accurate, I checked.

Accurate? Here is a screenshot of one part of your video:


Can you explain how your "explanation" using the screenshot above matches what NIST claims happened? Here is an analysis picture of what NIST found when doing their calculations:


Can you please point out in NIST's paper where they claim the beam fell because the flange failed?

Can you provide a couple of screen shots from your computer analysis? Did you include shear studs on the beam between 79 and 44 in your analysis?

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

Correct, which is why I asked him to point me to the quote/page where NIST states this. It doesn't exist.

So his claim that NIST says the beam failed because the flange failed is not only misleading, but pure bullshit.

I've dealt with gerrycan before and have pointed out numerous claims he has made to be incorrect, but he doesn't acknowledge them. He just keeps on truckin' with the same ole garbage.

 

[eots]

I also have an engineering background, and I have the drawings for the building, and I totally disagree with your analysis, and I made the video, so I know it to be accurate, I checked.

Accurate? Here is a screenshot of one part of your video:


Can you explain how your "explanation" using the screenshot above matches what NIST claims happened? Here is an analysis picture of what NIST found when doing their calculations:


Can you please point out in NIST's paper where they claim the beam fell because the flange failed?

Can you provide a couple of screen shots from your computer analysis? Did you include shear studs on the beam between 79 and 44 in your analysis?

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

simultaneously and in secs...lol

 

[Derideo_Te]

Accurate? Here is a screenshot of one part of your video:


Can you explain how your "explanation" using the screenshot above matches what NIST claims happened? Here is an analysis picture of what NIST found when doing their calculations:


Can you please point out in NIST's paper where they claim the beam fell because the flange failed?

Can you provide a couple of screen shots from your computer analysis? Did you include shear studs on the beam between 79 and 44 in your analysis?

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

simultaneously and in secs...lol

Obviously eots has no comprehension of the forces involved.

 

[Gamolon]

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

simultaneously and in secs...lol

Obviously eots has no comprehension of the forces involved.

Not at all. He's going back on ignore.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The gubmint is murdering twoofers?






and

 

[SAYIT]

Accurate? Here is a screenshot of one part of your video:


Can you explain how your "explanation" using the screenshot above matches what NIST claims happened? Here is an analysis picture of what NIST found when doing their calculations:


Can you please point out in NIST's paper where they claim the beam fell because the flange failed?

Can you provide a couple of screen shots from your computer analysis? Did you include shear studs on the beam between 79 and 44 in your analysis?

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

Correct, which is why I asked him to point me to the quote/page where NIST states this. It doesn't exist.

So his claim that NIST says the beam failed because the flange failed is not only misleading, but pure bullshit.

I've dealt with gerrycan before and have pointed out numerous claims he has made to be incorrect, but he doesn't acknowledge them. He just keeps on truckin' with the same ole garbage.

Which, of course, is the fundamental M.O. of the entire "Truth" Movement.
None of 'em are about the truth. Not one.

 

[Gamolon]

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

Correct, which is why I asked him to point me to the quote/page where NIST states this. It doesn't exist.

So his claim that NIST says the beam failed because the flange failed is not only misleading, but pure bullshit.

I've dealt with gerrycan before and have pointed out numerous claims he has made to be incorrect, but he doesn't acknowledge them. He just keeps on truckin' with the same ole garbage.

Which, of course, is the fundamental M.O. of the entire "Truth" Movement.
None of 'em are about the truth. Not one.

That's what happens when you're so far down the rabbit hole. Lies, incorrect information, cherry picking quotes...

All part of their arsenal. Too afraid to admit they're wrong because then it hurts their credibility.

 

[eots]

NIST did not claim that "the flange failed". They said that the beam EXPANDED and "SLIPPED OFF" the supporting flange.

When you heat steel it expands. Once it expanded beyond the flange's ability the beam slipped off. Slipping off means that it was no longer supported. The weight then transferred to the other supports and they could not handle the additional weight loading. So this started the cascade of failures.

simultaneously and in secs...lol

Obviously eots has no comprehension of the forces involved.

Forces ? like the dark side ??..what are these magical forces you speak of ?

 

[eots]

2. MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSION
NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation..

NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS).

"Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent." NCSTAR 1A p. 32 [pdf p. 74]

“…only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis.” NCSTAR 1A p. 36 [pdf p. 78]


To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST assumed high steel temperatures and applied the heat in 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. This method does not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging.

NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.

Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports ? Part 2 of 5

 

[Derideo_Te]

simultaneously and in secs...lol

Obviously eots has no comprehension of the forces involved.

Forces ? like the dark side ??..what are these magical forces you speak of ?

You don't have to constantly prove your ignorance, eots. It was already been established well beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Forces like gravity. Ever heard of it? How about shear and compression forces?

Obviously you haven't because you would never have made such an ignorant comment otherwise.