User Panel
Quoted: Likely because of the number of obvious facts one must choose to ignore in order to embrace patently absurd alternatives. View Quote I mean, I am in the middle with all of this because I don’t know. Would you consider them finding the passport from one of the hijackers in the rubble suspect? If the jet fuel from the plane was hot enough to melt the steel in the building, then surely it would’ve got that passport correct? Or was that just a one in a trillion chance it made it through all that destruction to be found by our top men? |
|
Quoted: I mean, I am in the middle with all of this because I don't know. Would you consider them finding the passport from one of the hijackers in the rubble suspect? If the jet fuel from the plane was hot enough to melt the steel in the building, then surely it would've got that passport correct? Or was that just a one in a trillion chance it made it through all that destruction to be found by our top men? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Likely because of the number of obvious facts one must choose to ignore in order to embrace patently absurd alternatives. I mean, I am in the middle with all of this because I don't know. Would you consider them finding the passport from one of the hijackers in the rubble suspect? If the jet fuel from the plane was hot enough to melt the steel in the building, then surely it would've got that passport correct? Or was that just a one in a trillion chance it made it through all that destruction to be found by our top men? |
|
Quoted: I mean, I am in the middle with all of this because I don’t know. Would you consider them finding the passport from one of the hijackers in the rubble suspect? If the jet fuel from the plane was hot enough to melt the steel in the building, then surely it would’ve got that passport correct? Or was that just a one in a trillion chance it made it through all that destruction to be found by our top men? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Likely because of the number of obvious facts one must choose to ignore in order to embrace patently absurd alternatives. I mean, I am in the middle with all of this because I don’t know. Would you consider them finding the passport from one of the hijackers in the rubble suspect? If the jet fuel from the plane was hot enough to melt the steel in the building, then surely it would’ve got that passport correct? Or was that just a one in a trillion chance it made it through all that destruction to be found by our top men? Where do you figure that passport was in relation to the fuel source at the time of impact? Think it just might have exited the structure along with a bunch of the rest of the airplane that they spent the next decade cleaning up over several city blocks? |
|
I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend.
I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? |
|
Quoted: Don't forget about the first 2, much taller, towers. I'm not an engineer or architect but I've been in the construction industry for 30 years and nothing will convince me that all three of those buildings came down perfectly on their own footprint simply by fire damage. There has never been any other steel building in history to collapse by fire damage, much less come down perfectly like those 3 buildings. Keep believing that "official narrative" though. They're counting on it. View Quote Brazil highrise fire causes building to collapse Steel Frame Building Collapse Tehran fire: Many feared dead as high-rise collapses - BBC News Video shows collapse of Miami-area condo building |
|
|
Quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwoBRHDLxdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf27GGZYT2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In697MamSKE View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Don't forget about the first 2, much taller, towers. I'm not an engineer or architect but I've been in the construction industry for 30 years and nothing will convince me that all three of those buildings came down perfectly on their own footprint simply by fire damage. There has never been any other steel building in history to collapse by fire damage, much less come down perfectly like those 3 buildings. Keep believing that "official narrative" though. They're counting on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwoBRHDLxdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf27GGZYT2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In697MamSKE 30-Second Reel of Building 7 Collapse Footage |
|
Quoted: Saying that the WTC collapsed in on its own footprint is also untruthful. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/FEMA_403_fig_1-7.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg/1920px-World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg View Quote Uh..911 retardation is a bannable offence here. Might want to be careful with that stuff. Not surprising Qtards are 911.truthers. I hope.it gets you guys yanked. No doubt you guys exist to make the Right look idiotic |
|
Quoted: Quoted: the good guys and the people winning is the plan. trump winning is probably part of that, but the white hats have thrown lots of curve balls. let's see what happens. So when Biden wins again, then what? he didn't win last time. |
|
Quoted: Ohhhhh I see. Well damn. You just ruined the whole plan. You just let the cat out of the bag. Now he can’t “make everybody think he is” lol What if he’s not just making people think that he is. But he really is? Mind blown ?? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: whoa man take it easy. how many checkerboards have you gone through already? those things don't grow on trees. Trump is doing his job, he's not the whole plan. His job is to make everybody think he is. Ohhhhh I see. Well damn. You just ruined the whole plan. You just let the cat out of the bag. Now he can’t “make everybody think he is” lol What if he’s not just making people think that he is. But he really is? Mind blown ?? if you're showing an interest in chess, your TDS/QDS friends won't want to play with you anymore. unless it's clown chess, where trump is a rino but mccarthy isn't. that's okay. |
|
|
|
the one who was intalled there, instead of the one the people voted for. does it never sink in that a lot of your arguments are just variations on an appeal to authority? what kind of patriot does that make? |
|
Quoted: Uh..911 retardation is a bannable offence here. Might want to be careful with that stuff. Not surprising Qtards are 911.truthers. I hope.it gets you guys yanked. No doubt you guys exist to make the Right look idiotic View Quote If you think I’m supporting 9/11 trutherism with those posts perhaps you should actually read/watch them. |
|
Quoted: the one who was intalled there, instead of the one the people voted for. does it never sink in that a lot of your arguments are just variations on an appeal to authority? what kind of patriot does that make? View Quote Serious question. Is your caps broken? Or did Q make you remove it. |
|
|
Quoted: You're the one not answering questions you dodo. If it wasn't a combination of the fire and structural damage that led to the collapse of the WTC buildings, what brought them down? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: i know it's offensive to suggest but actual science isn't something that's contorted to fit a narrative. why can't NIST or any of the establishment enthusiasts address the specifics of steel thickness, lack of column contortions and fire locations? is answering questions so hard? or is it easier to shut down debate with the establishment's rules? we would need a decent study to determine that. i'll take your inability/unwillingness to debate what I presented as an admission of the NIST study to be bogus. we also need a public that is fully informed of the events on that day, without so much kept classified from us. maybe if oliver stone did a movie about 9/11 we could question the establishment's narrative. let's just talk about JFK instead. who's first? |
|
Quoted: we would need a decent study to determine that. i'll take your inability/unwillingness to debate what I presented as an admission of the NIST study to be bogus. we also need a public that is fully informed of the events on that day, without so much kept classified from us. maybe if oliver stone did a movie about 9/11 we could question the establishment's narrative. let's just talk about JFK instead. who's first? View Quote |
|
Quoted: Serious question. Is your caps broken? Or did Q make you remove it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: the one who was intalled there, instead of the one the people voted for. does it never sink in that a lot of your arguments are just variations on an appeal to authority? what kind of patriot does that make? Serious question. Is your caps broken? Or did Q make you remove it. NO. WE HAD A MEETING AND HE GAVE AMBIGUOUS ORDERS. |
|
Quoted: Good luck straphanger, try not to wind up in federal prison. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
does this mean you're not donating to the trump campaign? now i'm starting to think you mean straphanger as a double entendre. BOYS BUTTS SHOULD BE EXIT ONLY. |
|
Quoted: Holy shit is your entire schtick just to constantly deflect with other asinine retardeation? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: we would need a decent study to determine that. i'll take your inability/unwillingness to debate what I presented as an admission of the NIST study to be bogus. we also need a public that is fully informed of the events on that day, without so much kept classified from us. maybe if oliver stone did a movie about 9/11 we could question the establishment's narrative. let's just talk about JFK instead. who's first? your NIST study is redardeated. and so is your NIST study's mom. |
|
|
|
Quoted: I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend. I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? View Quote Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic. |
|
|
Quoted: Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend. I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic. |
|
|
Quoted: Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend. I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic. people who are sick of BS 24/7 arguing with people who are so heavily invested in the establishment that they'll defend it to their last breath. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend. I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic. how about israel's 'intelligence failure' that allowed a bunch of tard palis to utterly get the drop on them? ooh then we could start following the money. |
|
Quoted: I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend. I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? View Quote The Moon landing will be mentioned soon (if it hasn't already). |
|
Quoted: How you even figured out how to make an account here is beyond me. I thought 9/11 conspiracy’s were persona non grata here? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: your NIST study is redardeated. and so is your NIST study's mom. How you even figured out how to make an account here is beyond me. I thought 9/11 conspiracy’s were persona non grata here? sanitized for your protection. >> “From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions,” said Walter. The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger “thermal movements” at a critical base plate support. Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on “science and engineering” and accept that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a plausible cause. For expediency and because it was not hit by a plane, the study looked only at WTC 7 not the other two but AE911T has long claimed all three were subject to something beyond heat induced failure. “The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were,” says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study. “Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.” Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building. The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning. The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure. “We don’t even know if the steel was fireproofed,” says Korol. The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a XXXXXXXXXXXXX and says its only interest is in ensuring that there’s no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault. UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, principal investigator, his research assistants, Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, found that the design standard of the building was not exceeded by the fire and that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX caused the structural steel to fail. “Fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building,” the report states. “Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.” The NIST report held that lateral support beams buckled because of thermal expansion from the fire and because they had “nowhere to go” and thus deformed and weakened the structural integrity. Other failures were triggered when joists and beams “walked off” their connections, NIST found. It was also the first NIST finding of a highrise collapse from thermal deformation caused by fire which the 125-page Alaska report disputes. It presents arguments showing it was a simultaneous global failure not a localized failure causing a domino effect. Hulsey et al argue that the collapse was straight down in a pancake fashion with about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for free fall acceleration. “In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration,” the report states. The study team undertook extensive computer and physical modelling, paying particular attention to the area around Column 79 which had been identified as the critical juncture of failure. Their conclusion is that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building and were not subjected to heat above floor 30 because there were no fires there. Even if they did, they would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures and the team was unable to find any other plausible cause for the progressive sequence of failures. >> |
|
Quoted: sanitized for your protection. >> "From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions," said Walter. The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger "thermal movements" at a critical base plate support. Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on "science and engineering" and accept that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a plausible cause. For expediency and because it was not hit by a plane, the study looked only at WTC 7 not the other two but AE911T has long claimed all three were subject to something beyond heat induced failure. "The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were," says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study. "Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure." Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building. The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning. The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure. "We don't even know if the steel was fireproofed," says Korol. The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a XXXXXXXXXXXXX and says its only interest is in ensuring that there's no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault. UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, principal investigator, his research assistants, Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, found that the design standard of the building was not exceeded by the fire and that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX caused the structural steel to fail. "Fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building," the report states. "Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse." The NIST report held that lateral support beams buckled because of thermal expansion from the fire and because they had "nowhere to go" and thus deformed and weakened the structural integrity. Other failures were triggered when joists and beams "walked off" their connections, NIST found. It was also the first NIST finding of a highrise collapse from thermal deformation caused by fire which the 125-page Alaska report disputes. It presents arguments showing it was a simultaneous global failure not a localized failure causing a domino effect. Hulsey et al argue that the collapse was straight down in a pancake fashion with about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for free fall acceleration. "In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration," the report states. The study team undertook extensive computer and physical modelling, paying particular attention to the area around Column 79 which had been identified as the critical juncture of failure. Their conclusion is that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building and were not subjected to heat above floor 30 because there were no fires there. Even if they did, they would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures and the team was unable to find any other plausible cause for the progressive sequence of failures. >> View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: your NIST study is redardeated. and so is your NIST study's mom. How you even figured out how to make an account here is beyond me. I thought 9/11 conspiracy's were persona non grata here? sanitized for your protection. >> "From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions," said Walter. The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger "thermal movements" at a critical base plate support. Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on "science and engineering" and accept that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a plausible cause. For expediency and because it was not hit by a plane, the study looked only at WTC 7 not the other two but AE911T has long claimed all three were subject to something beyond heat induced failure. "The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were," says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study. "Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure." Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building. The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning. The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure. "We don't even know if the steel was fireproofed," says Korol. The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a XXXXXXXXXXXXX and says its only interest is in ensuring that there's no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault. UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, principal investigator, his research assistants, Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, found that the design standard of the building was not exceeded by the fire and that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX caused the structural steel to fail. "Fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building," the report states. "Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse." The NIST report held that lateral support beams buckled because of thermal expansion from the fire and because they had "nowhere to go" and thus deformed and weakened the structural integrity. Other failures were triggered when joists and beams "walked off" their connections, NIST found. It was also the first NIST finding of a highrise collapse from thermal deformation caused by fire which the 125-page Alaska report disputes. It presents arguments showing it was a simultaneous global failure not a localized failure causing a domino effect. Hulsey et al argue that the collapse was straight down in a pancake fashion with about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for free fall acceleration. "In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration," the report states. The study team undertook extensive computer and physical modelling, paying particular attention to the area around Column 79 which had been identified as the critical juncture of failure. Their conclusion is that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building and were not subjected to heat above floor 30 because there were no fires there. Even if they did, they would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures and the team was unable to find any other plausible cause for the progressive sequence of failures. >> |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend. I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic. how about israel's 'intelligence failure' that allowed a bunch of tard palis to utterly get the drop on them? ooh then we could start following the money. following the money is a conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: your NIST study is redardeated. and so is your NIST study's mom. How you even figured out how to make an account here is beyond me. I thought 9/11 conspiracy's were persona non grata here? sanitized for your protection. >> "From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions," said Walter. The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger "thermal movements" at a critical base plate support. Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on "science and engineering" and accept that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a plausible cause. For expediency and because it was not hit by a plane, the study looked only at WTC 7 not the other two but AE911T has long claimed all three were subject to something beyond heat induced failure. "The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were," says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study. "Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure." Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building. The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning. The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure. "We don't even know if the steel was fireproofed," says Korol. The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a XXXXXXXXXXXXX and says its only interest is in ensuring that there's no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault. UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, principal investigator, his research assistants, Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, found that the design standard of the building was not exceeded by the fire and that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX caused the structural steel to fail. "Fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building," the report states. "Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse." The NIST report held that lateral support beams buckled because of thermal expansion from the fire and because they had "nowhere to go" and thus deformed and weakened the structural integrity. Other failures were triggered when joists and beams "walked off" their connections, NIST found. It was also the first NIST finding of a highrise collapse from thermal deformation caused by fire which the 125-page Alaska report disputes. It presents arguments showing it was a simultaneous global failure not a localized failure causing a domino effect. Hulsey et al argue that the collapse was straight down in a pancake fashion with about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for free fall acceleration. "In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration," the report states. The study team undertook extensive computer and physical modelling, paying particular attention to the area around Column 79 which had been identified as the critical juncture of failure. Their conclusion is that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building and were not subjected to heat above floor 30 because there were no fires there. Even if they did, they would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures and the team was unable to find any other plausible cause for the progressive sequence of failures. >> alright, fine. i'll admit it- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the WTC was.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attached File |
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: now i'm starting to think you mean straphanger as a double entendre. BOYS BUTTS SHOULD BE EXIT ONLY. https://y.yarn.co/57cd32a8-c119-4400-b5ad-f372781aea18_text.gif i swear to God i once had to tell a chick 'NO thank you'. |
|
Quoted: i swear to God i once had to tell a chick 'NO thank you'. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: now i'm starting to think you mean straphanger as a double entendre. BOYS BUTTS SHOULD BE EXIT ONLY. https://y.yarn.co/57cd32a8-c119-4400-b5ad-f372781aea18_text.gif i swear to God i once had to tell a chick 'NO thank you'. |
|
Still waiting on an answer into how a conclusion was reached before the modeling was complete.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Because the people who funded the study paid for a specific result? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Still waiting on an answer into how a conclusion was reached before the modeling was complete. Because the people who funded the study paid for a specific result? He was all too happy to give it to them four years ahead of the release of his final report. |
|
Quoted: I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend. I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com This place has largely become a joke. Seriously... 9/11 trooferism? View Quote But still you remain, posting furiously, with that massive post count... |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.