9/11

"He had the advantage of the media being so dishonest"

Thats where I think he has really excelled, because as Pres, he hasnt really done much.

Somehow he has managed, just by tweeting, to show the liberals as either buttkissers to hollywood elite, who we all really hate or crazy protesters

 

Think they were going to do a reboot a couple years back, but it fizzled out.

There hasnt been enough post apocalyptic non zombie movies lately.

I would pay to see a escape from new york redo

 

And this from someone who entered this thread without even being able to recognize the core structure when it was shown to them point-blank.

 

That was the NIST's simulation. But as they've admitted before, they really don't know what was going on fire-wise beyond a few meters into the Tower. The point is that even in their simulation, they have the core not hot enough to be compromised.

Now reconcile that with there statement here:

Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces.

You see the problem there?
___________________________________________________________________________

NCSTAR 1-5, section 3.2 describes the first of only two series of physical tests conducted by NIST designed to predict the temperatures and heat release rate (HRR) profiles that the WTC buildings (1 and 2) might have experienced due to building combustibles. (A second series was conducted for the purpose of validating a computer simulation.) Unfortunately, NIST lists only the heat release rates and mass loss profiles--it does not list the temperatures attained during the tests. This is significant in that it is critical to establish whether common office furnishings and equipment, such as the WTC buildings contained, could have reached temperatures sufficient to cause the structural systems to fail. The issue becomes more relevant in light of several considerations, such as:

• Modern office furniture is required to meet strict flame-resistant standards. It is unlikely that any items in the typical office spaces contained any unusually combustible materials. As NIST noted, “visits to showrooms indicated that, while there was a broad range of prices and appearances, the cubicles were fundamentally similar.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para4)

• NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

• Even significant workstation fires would fail to support the theory that fire significantly weakened the critical core columns, since “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2)

• As shown in Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-8 (NCSTAR 1-5 p53 & 56), the tests were conducted with no limit to ventilation. However, NIST’s FDS computer simulation found that the WTC fires, at least in WTC 1, “were generally ventilation limited.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p183) On an airtight floor, NIST calculates that “only about 2 percent of the combustibles would have burned” (NCSTAR 1-5 p49, para3) and, if instantaneously ignited, would have burned out “in about 2 min.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p49, para4) “Since the fires burned longer than this and since they thus consumed far more of the combustibles, the rate at which fresh air became available played a major role in determining the duration of the fires.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p49, para5) Although the airplane impacts caused large apertures on one side of the buildings, this alone would not allow for moving ventilation. How much ventilation was allowed by broken windows in other locations? How far above the 2%/2min. burn-out threshold did the increased ventilation and office-furniture fires take the “ventilation-limited” fires? Based upon this series of tests, it is very difficult to tell.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

 

I half-slept through the "Blade Runner" reboot, "Blade Runner 2049". I think I was just tired though, not because it was boring. I remember feeling like it was a little weird. Anyway, you think I should watch "Escape from New York" again? I'm considering it seeing the hype around it. When I borrowed it from the library I thought it was just a bad movie they had in the stacks for people who have too much time to watch movies.

 

You still butthurt about that? You fell for it hook line and sinker, and are still doing so.


Show everyone the picture again and what you think I claimed

 

Broken links in tjat journakof911studies site, so I dont even know if anyoned around to maintain the site, or have been for years.


As for asshat911truth.org, if after all this time, 17 years, thats the best theyve got.....

Pull temperatures from one test with the fire proofing on floor trusses, somehow try to make out they couldnt use that temp in computer sims on another part of the building where it doesnt matter anyway because those centre columns get ripped out anyway, somehow 500C now is impossible in an office fire. Even that in itself makes no sense

.....but if thats the best they have, a bunch of supposed architects and engineers (dentists and gardeners), and thats the only truther sight left that shows any evidence of being updated in the last 3 years.

Well that says it all.

Yeah, anyone that parrotted the 9,10,11 second thing for 10,15,17 years was just a sheeple, mindlessly following a bunch of part time youtubers/day time subway employees..without even so much as checking the one simple fact of how long they actually took to fall....for all those years

 

Never bothered watching BR 2049.

The original, I still have no understanding whatsoever as to why thats supposed to be a good movie, a painfully slow and boring film noir wankfest

 

You understand quite well that you responded to a picture of the core structure by asking me why I posted a picture of something from the 1930s, and now you're in damage-control mode. And just so everyone understands that you were arguing the strength of the core structure when you didn't even recognize it when it was put right in front of your eyes, here's the pic:


And here's your response to that pic:

"As for that second picture, I was unaware they started construction on the wtc in the 1930s."

You fucked up, and now we're seeing how you handle butthurt--denial.

 

The point here is that you took the NIST's word that the core columns were compromised to the point of failure because of the fire even though they admitted to not knowing the extent of the fire beyond a few meters inside the Tower, and even though their own computer simulation shows that the core area was the coolest area. Maybe that's because they were aware of the fact that “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2), and that “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3). You haven't responded to that.

Nor have you addressed this:

NCSTAR 1-5, section 3.2 describes the first of only two series of physical tests conducted by NIST designed to predict the temperatures and heat release rate (HRR) profiles that the WTC buildings (1 and 2) might have experienced due to building combustibles. (A second series was conducted for the purpose of validating a computer simulation.) Unfortunately, NIST lists only the heat release rates and mass loss profiles--it does not list the temperatures attained during the tests. This is significant in that it is critical to establish whether common office furnishings and equipment, such as the WTC buildings contained, could have reached temperatures sufficient to cause the structural systems to fail. The issue becomes more relevant in light of several considerations, such as:

• Modern office furniture is required to meet strict flame-resistant standards. It is unlikely that any items in the typical office spaces contained any unusually combustible materials. As NIST noted, “visits to showrooms indicated that, while there was a broad range of prices and appearances, the cubicles were fundamentally similar.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para4)

• NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

• Even significant workstation fires would fail to support the theory that fire significantly weakened the critical core columns, since “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
That speaks to the severity of the fires. Address that

 

Dude, its not even your own stuff, you are just copying and pasting from asshat911truth.org

In the hope people are going to think you know what you are talking about.

You didnt even read the thing, just going by lies on the truther website

 

Yes, and I never said wtc construction started in the 1930s, but you fell for it, and are still going. No one is going to believe reading all this shit, i didnt know when they were built.

No one is going to even bother checking what that picture is.

Its just going to look like a whole bunch of pettyness and butthurt, you didnt read my response properly, like I knew you would.....and its still going.

 

Did An Image Search And Came Up With......"Most Likely WTC"......But On Closer Examination Of

The Pic With A Magnifying Glass Tis Clear The Cars And Trucks Are Way Too Old For That To

Be Correct......



Cheers Glen.

 

Um, no. I'm providing pertinent quotes from the NIST, and you're calling them lies so that you don't have to address them. So now you're the liar. Now instead of stalling, let's continue.

The point here is that you took the NIST's word that the core columns were compromised to the point of failure because of the fire even though they admitted to not knowing the extent of the fire beyond a few meters inside the Tower, and even though their own computer simulation shows that the core area was the coolest area. Maybe that's because they were aware of the fact that “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2), and that “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3).

You haven't responded to that.

 

I showed you a picture of the core structure of the WTC. You said that you were unaware they started construction on the wtc in the 1930s. I'm afraid that that is a matter of public record now. You can try to squirm your way out of being exposed as someone who argued the strength of something when you had no idea what that something even looked like, but all you'll do is make people wonder just how stupid you think they are. Knowing when something was built, and knowing it when you see it, are two different things, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

And you're right, there are people who are not even going to bother checking what that picture is of. Unfortunately for you, you were one of them.
____________________________________________________________________

And to add insult to injury, we have you on record saying that this:


would not stand on it's own if it were built to 15 stories. Funny.

 

So you don't believe that that pic is of the WTC under construction? This just keeps getting better.

 

Grinning 9/11 terrorist gets hero’s welcome

 

Lolz, is there anyone left at this journalof911studies site?

Editors | Journal of 9/11 Studies


Most of them seem to have given up 5 years ago. Theres like a lab manager in charge now

 

And there you go again. Is that what I said is it?

So I point out you were silly enough to post a pic of them having to build the exterior of the building up along with the centre columns, because the centre columns wont stand up by themselves.

Now you are trying to lie and make out I said the whole thing would fall down .....because you had a think about it, maybe tried to search the internet for any kind of photo anywhere of anyone building up the middle of a building first duh uh uh uh uh uh, headscratch, why doesnt anyone build them like that duh uh uh uh uh.....

 

Yes, you asked why I posted a picture from the 1930s, the implication being that the photo I provided was not of the WTC.

And now you're pushing the idea that the only reason the Tower was constructed as it was is because the core structure would have toppled at the 15-story mark. You go ahead and provide the source for that silly idea of yours. Show me that someone else besides you believes such a thing.

And no, I did not accuse you of saying that the whole thing would have fallen down. I accused you of saying that, without the floors and exterior, the core would have fallen down at the 15-story mark. And I accused you of saying that because you said it.