West ends with I might be wrong so it would good to know if he is. That why i am asking has he played around with the data to confirm his initial analysis
I donât know, often that âraw dataâ complaint is a farce. Data often needs to be processed, to be useful. There is plenty of data available to the public, itâs not that complicated.
With a malicious heart (and intent) you make can anything sinister, but jeez, what happened to that building #7 was pretty fundamental and predictable, given all the evidence at hand and before our eyes. Beyond that, alternatives seem to get extreme to the point of farce in a hurry, such as bringing up the melting temperature of steel.
Itâs all about fân distortion of steel, plus shocks and stresses to engineered connections at bearing points, and stresses in extreme conditions, and such.
Why is it you want to see something sinister beyond the sinister that we all know about?
The entire building WTC#7 was spending hours cooking and turning to structural mush. When the straw that broke the camels back finally came, it propagated in a breath taking hurry. Did you really think that building was going to survive the rattling it received, given the fires? Fires, thermo shock, heating and cooling, perhaps reheating. Why doesnât all that seem enough?
Of course the speed and finality, carries an emotional load, we canât believe itâs so, but it is.
In my time wondering this parcel for the past ten years, once I was down by the river, er, creek, relaxing gazing out over the stream of water and towards couple of big old cottonwood trees.
I heard a loud crack and literally in front of my eyes a huge +12" diameter major branch, up around 20 feet off the ground snapping and fell right before my eyes.
The speed and finality was truly awesome, rattled my thoughts for the rest of the day.
I think you need to listen to that ending again.
At least the way I hear it, heâs inviting anyone who thinks he, that is Mick West, was mistaken, to explain why.
Really, heâs not doubting his assessment. I mean, didnât the video seem pretty clear and honest - itâs about simple physics?
He did that video before the raw data was made available to the public. You keep on harping on about the melting temp of steel while you know that for WTC 7 there was no jet fuel involved so that fire load is eliminated. Why should qualified persons test the data is because every model is only as good as the uncertainties and assumptions put into it and peer review of the data set is what is required to observe how the simulation matches with what was observed in real life. All that I am aware of is Uni of Alaska Fairbanks produced report that shows that fire was not the cause of collapse and that columns on two sets of floors failed simultaneously. I am not aware of any âpeer reviewedâ dissent on that. Unlike NIST, UofA have given the data (570 odd Gb) for input/output of their simulations. One needs to have ABAQUS, SAP2000 and SOLIDWORKS software to be able to replicate the simulations using UofA data. I donât have access to these. Do you, ( as serious researchers do) ?? If you can point me to a report that refutes UofA findings using their data sets, that would be great.
Not sure the implications are for what you are saying about the pilots.
Anyway , how about this for America harbouring the hijackers?
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/11/ar911.hijackers.landlord/
Never got the piloting argument. Iâve held the stick in a small plane, learned to turn in about 10 minutes. I could easily line it up to a point and fly toward it. Landing without crashing is the hardest part of flying.
Hey that came from that first story you shared. Heâs the one that brought it up. Itâs his bad, not mine.
Wait a minute, first it was a team of three guys at UAF, funded by a truther conspiracy believers - not the UAF - keep that straight.
Second, didnât you watch that video you shared. Hurley used a totally unrealistic, childish even, model.
They were nonsense simulations.
Why not simply listen to Westâs video again. Sounded like he was going to do more work, youâd be better investing more time following him.
I appreciate it really does take experts to tease out the details and evidence, but we are still on the physical plain, and basic are pretty fundamental.
I mean look at Husleyâs model of building collapse and look at the gravity diagram, then answer the question of what could have possibly put so much shear pressure to tip a building over. Remember the actually building is like 90% open air.
It takes experts to understand the details of the stresses that building enduring during the initial WTC collapse, and to understand the detail that happened during hours of roasting in fire. It take only common sense that is going to deform all sorts of things, stress and weaken all sorts of other things and so on.
A near simultaneous collapse - but it was definitely not âsimultaneousâ it was a catastrophic failure.
Also does the fact that no one else is interested, should give you a hint. I mean hundreds of experts worked on the NIST report, you think they are all conspirators, and all remained silent all these years.
It makes no sense.
Donât you think itâs a little extreme to characterize an FBI informations renting a room to a couple of thugs - âAmerica Harbouring Hijackers.â
Although thatâs a whole different thread that probably would get into all sorts of weeds, since there is evidence all over the place of the Bush/Cheney team protecting the privacy of Saudi nationals, when they were suspect number one.
The point of the pilots is that, A) you brought it up, B) it actuality it wasnât that difficult a technical task to perform, if you had god and a hatred deeper than I can imagine.
I donât understand how your thinking works in this, but I really appreciate that we are actually having a discussion, rather than just spitting at each other.
Cheers, have a good day.
DJ, you donât understand what that word means. Without taking a side in this conversation, someone could simply look at how many times you are asked to âbe specificâ, clarify a reference, add your own thoughts to a link you posted, not to make posts that are nothing but name calling, and more.
Note the highlighting, that means this is a moderator message.
"The point of the pilots is that, A) you brought it up, "
Not me!
I think it was Cuthbert. Shit happens. Lighten everybody. We got enough vinegar flying around here, no reason to throw fire on the fan!
Sorry about that, my bad.
Come on, weâre doing good. I said it was him. He said NO! He was right. I stand corrected.
Didnât neither of us swing at thâother
On the put options - this from Wiki
Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11 attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.[2
DJ, you copy and paste that like itâs a fact that you have verified. Itâs a quote. From Mindy Kleinberg. Her husband died in 9/11, so I can see why she would be asking this. But you provide nothing here. The most obvious, investors arenât disclosed generally, and this was said in 2003, so it could have been true then but not now. I also doubt the ânever beforeâ part, but Iâm not going to fact check a widow.
That was a general comment to all participants.
Came across these graph in research paper
Below seems to be consistent with what Mindy was saying about trading volumes. As far as i know what wiki says about unnamed traders and unclaimed profits still stands.
The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley âputâ option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time
Any she wasnât asking anything in that statement to the commission, Just stating that facts. 
Therefore, he needs to give an exact link to that quote, not just say âitâs from Wikiâ. BTW, I donât think itâs good to just say, âWikiâ either, because of âWikileaksâ, âWikipediaâ, âWikithis and thatâ.