Those anti-establishment pundits who support the official story

The viewers expect a reply, it should be dead easy for you to give one.

 

repeat post, asked/answered see previous page

 

It should be dead easy for you to point the viewers to the "answer" bit. You are evading simple questions.

Hulsey used ABAQUS and his "fire modeling covered only 2 floors, when there were 10 floors on fire for most of the day!

 

asked/answered

 

Well, all the viewers can see where it was ASKED! They're having trouble, like me, seeing where you answered the damn things!

As stated, it should be extremely easy to answer or point to where it was answered. But you didn't and haven't. You claim to be an "expert" on FEA as though this generic process encompasses all eventualities in examining a fire-ravaged building. It doesn't.

The software used determines the efficacy of the analysis. Weidlinger used purpose-built software to that very end, encompassing extensive fire modeling. They concluded that fire was the cause of collapse.

 

state specific differences?

 

FEA is a generic term to describe the analysis itself. The various softwares incorporate the specifics. Hulsey used ABAQUS and did mapping on ONLY 2 floors! That is a ludicrous failure.

1. Please explain what you mean by "stand corrected". Or point exactly to where you have "answered it"!
2. Tell everyone why you claimed Hulsey DID fire modeling, but now it's not important because you found out he didn't.

 

Telling the truth can be very hazardous to your health and freedom.

They say the truth will set you free but I think they mean in the world that is to come

 

it got Danny jowenko dead

 

ignored, repeat speculation, not differences

 

Telling the truth has got a lot of men dirt napping. Unalived.

 

Prove it. It is absolutely absurd to suggest he was killed years after he had caused conspiracy theorists to have kittens!

Maybe before he spoke, but "bumping him off" adds fuel to his observation. Meanwhile no answers to very simple questions. Go figure.

Uhuh.

Come on where did you answer this? Is it a secret?

 

Still no claimed software differences posted folks
Just dodgy personal opinions/tangents

 

Ignoring the noise. FEA softwares can be looked up quite easily, ABAQUS is not ideal for fire modeling, especially when ineptly used to cover only two floors out of 10.

The Weidlinger report though, that WAS ideal. All floors on fire were mapped using software that was expressly created for fires.

 

No specifics = MORE BUNK

 

But surely you've read the already quoted specifics, months ago! What is it exactly your posting is trying to establish?

Weidlinger used specific software designed for fires. Hulsey's critique of Weidlinger was some headshaking crap about temperatures that were absolutely stock for a building fire. This forum has a great search facility if you are struggling to remember your participation.

 

Where exactly did you answer this? Nobody knows.

 

That your claims are either valid or not valid.
failure to produce = your claims invalid
therefore your difference claims are invalid

 

plenty of specifics that you continually ignore … it’s a pattern with you … ask for evidence then when provided, ignore and move the goalposts. …

 

Uhuh. What exactly did YOU produce here? You're ignoring everything. You won't even answer simple questions.

Is fire modeling important, yes or no? It was important when you thought Hulsey did it. But he only covered 2 floors. Ten were on fire. Seems a bit negligent don't you think?

But then again what are the chances?

An organization intent on proving their batshit conspiracy theories begins by disputing a thorough report by experts at NIST. They engage a bridge-building expert and pay him accordingly. So how lucky do they get, that he gives them the exact outcome they needed.

It wasn't fire according to him, when he did woefully inaccurate fire modeling and dismisses an organization that DID with some stupid statement about normal building fire temperatures. Since he didn't model them properly, you have to wonder how or why he managed to conclude it.

 

more repeat, still nothing, oh well

 

One of us is providing information, stating facts, asking pertinent questions and............ well, it's me.

A paper analyzing a building collapse that determines it wasn't fire when they don't adequately model the fire is fairly useless. Dead lucky he came to the desired conclusion though.

 

source?

 

Hulsey et al. Seriously, are you denying the building was on fire or something!?

 

ignored, nonresponsive