View Single Post
Old 24th November 2015, 04:24 PM   #88
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It will be a big step forward if AE911 does go outside that false limitation.

To date that Szamboti imposed nonsense has limited debate of WTC7 initiation including the flow on AE911 initiatives such as those by Pepper.

Once they move outside of that false limit it means that they are abandoning most of Szamboti's nonsense.

It would be "One small step for 9/11 debate. One giant leap for AE911 kind."
No. You're underestimating the importance of what Tony and others found. Even the FEAs done in Edinburgh for WTC7 tried removing various elements to try to induce failure and failed to do so. They also looked at detailed areas in isolation.
While it is certainly valid to take this connection in isolation and examine the effects of heat induced expansion on it, I don't get the impression that the FEA being discussed here will stop at that. Far from it.
You should ask at the site given when you are able, to ask about the scope of the analysis. I will wait with interest to see what you are told.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top