• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any published papers criticizing NIST?

Wow. You're dragging this way beyond its relevance.

No. A sagging truss is not truss failure.
 
ergo said:
Wow. You're dragging this way beyond its relevance.

No. A sagging truss is not truss failure.
Click to expand...
If that's what you want to believe. Can I interest you in a building with some "slightly used" trusses?

You have no clue how the floor system in these buildings worked.

Back to my original statement. Maybe you should have someone read you the reports and explain them to you.

You look pathetic.


:o
 
DGM said:
You have no clue how the floor system in these buildings worked.
Click to expand...

You seem to have no clue that the floor system has nothing to do with collapse initiation. Well, except for the sagging trusses. ;)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Does Quintiere talk about sagging trusses? His whole thesis is centered around truss vulnerability! And so was the practical experiment he and his group conducted!

snip!

My God... what level of oblivion is required to ask if Quintiere was talking about trusses? That's like asking if Darwin was talking about organisms. *smh*
Click to expand...

He's clearly talking about FAILED trusses....not "sagging". World of difference....


:boggled:


Wow. You're dragging this way beyond its relevance.

No. A sagging truss is not truss failure.
Click to expand...

Holy crap. I was just kidding. WOW.
 
ergo said:
I guess I should've said supposed inward bowing.
Click to expand...
No, you shouldn't've said anything.
InwardBowing.jpg
 
ergo said:
Yes, Twinstead.

NIST does not model collapse progression.
Click to expand...
Why would they model the collapse? They already know what it looks like since it happened! It would be a waste of time modeling the collapse since we have a the real collapse on video, no model needed.

NIST had to investigate the WTC to meet the goals they set, unlike you who has no goal but to display ignorance, post fantasy, and make up nonsense.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
No, you shouldn't've said anything.
[qimg]http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Unloved REbel, of the silly spammed bedunker list.

Do you understand what we're talking about here?
 
Since the topic of conversation seems to be Dr. Quintiere, has anyone thought to ask him via email or telephone what his opinions are? I mean, it's not hard to find out his contact information...........
 
ergo said:
Yes, Twinstead.

NIST does not model collapse progression.
Click to expand...

So? Why would they? They weren't tasked to model the collapse progression, just the initiation. Exactly what else besides "progression" would have happened after "initiation"? This initiation wasn't caused by laser beams from space, thermite, explosives, Godzilla, unicorns, or anything else the truth movement's fevered imagination can produced.

Unless you can show it was, I could care less about your opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
And I was wrong stating he really needed to need (or have it read to him) the report he was commenting on.

:boggled:
Click to expand...

why should that ever stop him? it never has in the past. He ran like 10 pages attacking scott summers research that was in skeptic magazine without ever having read any of it. Never stopped him there.

He only understands datamined quotes and has difficulty with things like prepositions, qualifiers, exaggerations and similes. So it isn't hard to understand that he is out of his depth... but that is ok... he has delusions of adequacy that are unfortunately not merited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom