Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you speak for every scientist and engineer in the world? Most engineers are clueless a third tower fell on 9/11. NIST 9/11 research paper on ASCE was only downloaded 500 times, that shows very few have actually read what they had to say.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you speak for every scientist and engineer in the world?

Most engineers are clueless a third tower fell on 9/11.

This report is in rebuttal to the reports [Bailey, 2010], [Nordenson, 2010a],
[Nordenson 2010b], [Colaco 2010] and [Torero 2010] offered by plaintiffs’
experts concerning the collapse of 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7) as a
result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The plaintiffs’ experts’ central hypothesis is that design and construction
errors were the proximate cause of the collapse of WTC 7 and that WTC 7
would not have collapsed but for these errors. I, together with a team of
colleagues at Weidlinger Associates Inc., have undertaken a careful
review of the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, and especially of the computer
analyses and data which are proffered as a basis for those opinions.
We have also conducted our own independent analyses to assess the
structural stability of WTC 7 and to determine the entire causal chain that
led to the building’s collapse. This study has involved thousands of hours
of analysis by my team over the course of five years.

We have reviewed
all of the available construction documents, shop drawings and review
documents from the construction of WTC 7. Using state-of-the-art
computational tools, specifically validated for fire effects on structures and
collapse analyses, we were able to use these documents and plans to
create a three-dimensional computer model of the WTC 7 building, which
accurately reflects the conditions and responses of the WTC 7 structural
system to the events of September 11. These computational tools and
Weidlinger’s analyses are routinely relied upon by the Department of
Defense and other federal agencies in the extreme loading assessment
and design of many critical structures, including U.S. embassies of recent
vintage for example. All of our analyses were conducted with the level of
care and requisite detail needed to address the specific issue being
examined.
In doing all of this work, I have drawn on my and Weidlinger’s cumulative
experience in the development of computational techniques and the
evaluation of the performance of structures undergoing extreme loading,
supported by several decades worth of large-scale experimental validation
for such phenomenology.
Based on our analyses and critical review of the analyses, data and
engineering judgment of plaintiffs’ experts, we find all of the design errors
asserted as a cause of collapse to be either unfounded or based on
erroneous, and even contrived, analyses. Our analyses clearly establish
that the attacks of September 11 set-off an unstoppable chain of events,
given the circumstances of the day, of such magnitude as to exhaust the
capacity of the building structural system over the course of seven hours
leading to the ultimate collapse of WTC 7. As discussed herein, the
claimed “defects” featured in plaintiffs’ experts’ reports are not defects at
all. And none of the changes advocated by plaintiffs’ experts would have
prevented the collapse.

Our analyses show that the initiation of structural failure occurred as a
result of high steel temperatures, which degraded the strength and
stiffness of the framing and connections, and resulted in very large
movements of the floor. These high temperatures occur, not as a result of
some defect in the thermal insulation provided by the fire protective
material on the steel, but rather by virtue of the long duration of the fires,
their extent and locations, and the absence of any fire suppression.

King Mob wrote: »

So whats the bets?
"they're all fake experts"
"they're all bought off by the government"
Or
"prove they are experts"

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't agree. The post you wrote is about steel building implosions. That a different subject.

You disputed my claim the model and collapses have to resemble each other and banie said the same.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What can't you guys wait till sep 11th and discuss the new research then? I willing to wait another few weeks?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There isn't a case study. September 11 was the first time ever a steel framed skyscraper collapsed due to fire. NIST even had to come up with a new theory to explain world trade seven collapse. Evidence disappeared and was taken away and US senators, said it was criminal the steel was not kept.

The steel from this site taken away by dump trunks later the steel was shipped out to countries outside the united states to be melted down. NIST even made a statement on their website, they had searched for WTC7 steel, and could not locate it anywhere.

NIST progressive collapse theory is just guesswork. They have know clue how hot the steel got. When photographs are used NIST settled on column 79- floor 12 and 13) for the start of the collapse. Reason their peers make different suggestions it began somewhere else on a different floor. The only agreement these experts have is fires caused the collapse, but again its least likely cause. Fire has never brought down a steel high rise high rise before and controlled demolition when used has collapsed steel high rises (probably hundreds of times i would guess by now)

It not what we discussed though! The argument was does a computer model of a collapse need to match the actual collapse. You said no and banie the same.

I complained or took issue with NIST progressive collapse model. For me does not resemble the actual collapse. You said it does not need to and you provided your post with the study. You claimed this demolition model is not in parity with the actual collapse. I diagree after looking at it, and personally saw only miniscule differences between the demolition model and photographs provided.