• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Yet another Truther Tirade - any takers?

parky76 said:
Have I told you, lately, that I love you? :D

oh, and by the way, JREF is not bound by the the U.S. Constitution. Neither is any privately-owned publication in the USA.
Click to expand...

LOL Parky!

I know, but why would anyone post anything that's privately owned on the internet. I can see if it's a business, but a forum? Hmmmmm!
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
LOL Parky!

I know, but why would anyone post anything that's privately owned on the internet. I can see if it's a business, but a forum? Hmmmmm!
Click to expand...

JREF..is privately owned and operated. therefore, unlike govt. owned property, it is not bound by the 1st Amendment.

sowwy.
 
I took Chewy off ignore for a second to read post #66. Back to ignore he goes.
 
jaydeehess said:
(...)
"silica/ceramic fireproofing"?? It was spray on lightweight fire insulation. To my knowledge it was not ceramic or cementatious. The spray on imsulation is not intended for blast exposure or in abrasive enviroments such as when a friggin large jetliner crashes at high speed. The contention here is beyond ridiculous.
Far from a 'worst case senario' NIST did their sims using parameters that varied because those parameters could not be known for a certainty and it so happens that the worse case sim'd is the one that best matches observed events. If the CT wishes to claim that the lesser cases were in effect and "more probable" then he must give reason to assume so. Something beyond "NIST is bad" would be required.

Because NIST was stating, IIRC, that pancaking was not the primary effect for the entire collapse. (...)
Click to expand...

This is not true. The poster presents luck of basic designing and construction knowledge. Most of high raise schemes are designed to resist different worst case scenarios, i.e. big passenger jet hitting the building. This building was no exception.
 
Michal said:
This is not true. The poster presents luck of basic designing and construction knowledge. Most of high raise schemes are designed to resist different worst case scenarios, i.e. big passenger jet hitting the building. This building was no exception.
Click to expand...

Exactly how "worst case" do you think buildings are designed to resist? A bird? A small plane? A jet airliner lost in the fog? A jet fully-laden jet airliner impacting at almost 600mph? A space shuttle impacting at 20,000 mph? An asteroid?
 
Michal said:
This is not true. The poster presents luck of basic designing and construction knowledge. Most of high raise schemes are designed to resist different worst case scenarios, i.e. big passenger jet hitting the building. This building was no exception.
Click to expand...

But someone decides what "worst case" is for each building.

WTC wasn't designed for a CAT5 hurricane.

It wasn't designed for a level 7 earthquake.

It wasn't designed for a jet airliner flying at 500MPH.

It wasn't designed to survive an atomic bomb, a requirement that corporations thought about 50 years ago and those companies moved 50 miles away from NYC.

The towers were also not designed to survive structural damage and unfought major fire. No modern steel building is.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
(...)
Quote:
2) Weakened the structure of the building.
For NIST's models to work, both computer and lab tests, they had to remove nearly all of the silica/ceramic fireproofing over a large area of the floor. Second (this is the damning part), they had to remove 50% of the trusses and cross-members to initiate a global collapse. They even state in their reports that they had to use extreme measures to duplicate the results (a so-called "worst-case scenario). The probable scenarios couldn't create the results.
SO?



You're an idiot. Next!

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I will help you.

In order to conduct the real study you need to:

1. find out what happened
2. find out what was the preliminary damage (study the genuine percentage of the damaged elements
3. carry out simulation
4. find out if the outcome is coherent with the final real state.

it is not professional to consider 50%, 60%, 30% or any other random percentage of damaged elements for the test.
 
BigAl said:
(...)

It wasn't designed for a jet airliner flying at 500MPH.

(...)

The towers were also not designed to survive structural damage and unfought major fire. No modern steel building is.
Click to expand...

those above are not true ... at least if it comes to WTC ... all other agreed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom