911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: AllYou! on 21 Sep 2009 17:55 In news:022011d6-3a06-4ab3-954b-1da30f897a78(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 21, 12:29 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791085(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >>>> In article >>>> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, >> >>>> AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>>> In >>>>> news:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach >>>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled >>>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. >> >>>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >> >>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. >>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is >>>>> supposed to be insulated. >> >>>> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures >>>> expert >>>> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no >>>> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built >>>> to >>>> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all >>>> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were >>>> unique in >>>> the minimal fireproofing. >> >>>> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud[Page 310, Report From Ground >>>> Zero] >> >>>> Who is Vincent Dunn? >>>> http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn >> >>> And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?" >> >> Can you dispute the report? > > The report ignores evidence "it didn't look for." Yes, it did not look for evidence of aliens from space, and so it was ignored. I'll grant you that one. But, unlike you, it didn't ignore why structural steel buildings need fireproofing. Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?
From: AllYou! on 21 Sep 2009 17:55 In news:h98nun$fdh$1(a)panix5.panix.com, Al Dykes <adykes(a)panix.com> mused: > In article > <022011d6-3a06-4ab3-954b-1da30f897a78(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, > <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sep 21, 12:29=A0pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>> Innews:ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791085(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, >>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >>>>> In article >>>>> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, >>> >>>>> AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>>>> In >>>>>> news:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >>> >>>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >>>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low >>>>>>>> approach speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and >>>>>>>> fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG >>>>>>>> difference. >>> >>>>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >>> >>>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. >>>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is >>>>>> supposed to be insulated. >>> >>>>> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures >>>>> expert >>>>> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no >>>>> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, >>>>> built to >>>>> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all >>>>> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were >>>>> unique in >>>>> the minimal fireproofing. >>> >>>>> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud[Page 310, Report From Ground >>>>> Zero] >>> >>>>> Who is Vincent Dunn? >>>>> http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn >>> >>>> And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?" >>> >>> Can you dispute the report? >> >> The report ignores evidence "it didn't look for." >> >> Can you dispute the calculation? >> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > > There is no link to the source of the math on that page. > > I call cherry-picked bullshit. I call it lying.
From: knews4u2chew on 21 Sep 2009 18:09 On Sep 21, 2:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > > > On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 > >>>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > >>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > >>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > >>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > >>> Doesn't matter. > >>> "Multiple jet hits." > > >> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > >> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed > >> to be insulated. > > > REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes > > crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? > > Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? It's no wonder > you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple English! > The designer was talking about how the towers were designed to > withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever else might > result from a plane crash. Oh yea, they forgot about that....
From: AllYou! on 21 Sep 2009 18:14 In news:4b546255-1763-45f2-bef0-1734768fecf6(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 21, 2:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach >>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled >>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. >> >>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >> >>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They >>>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed >>>> to be insulated. >> >>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes >>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? >> >> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? It's no wonder >> you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple >> English! The designer was talking about how the towers were >> designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever >> else might result from a plane crash. > > Oh yea, they forgot about that.... Yes, I'm sure that youe wacko friends did forget about how there's a difference between the force of the plane hit, and other things that could result from a plane hit. Just like you keep forgetting to answer the question as to why all major building codes in the world require structural steel members to be insulated from heat.
From: AllYou! on 21 Sep 2009 18:16
In news:h98tnu$1j4$1(a)panix5.panix.com, Al Dykes <adykes(a)panix.com> mused: > In article > <4b546255-1763-45f2-bef0-1734768fecf6(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, > <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sep 21, 2:53=A0pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >>> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.co= >> m, >>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >>> >>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach >>>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled >>>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. >>> >>>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >>> >>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. >>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is >>>>> supposed to be insulated. >>> >>>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes >>>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their >>>> collapse? >>> >>> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? =A0It's no >>> wonder you're so confused. =A0You obviously can't understand >>> simple English! The designer was talking about how the towers >>> were designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to >>> whatever else might result from a plane crash. >> >> Oh yea, they forgot about that.... > > > Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC designer] > original partners who also worked as the project manager at the > [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have > pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building > stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in > a building of 1350 feet is just not possible. Knews keeps forgetting about that part of what the designer said. He also seems to keep forgetting to answer the question as to why all major building codes require structural steel member to be insulated. |