9/11

Now you have to explain how the remaining 39 core and 205 perimeter columns were effected by the fires after the NIST has claimed:

"The core space contained relatively little combustible mass." (NCSTAR 1-5 p49 para7)

"The fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible." (NCSTAR 1-5 p51 para2)

Also from the NIST:

“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

Also, you're still not producing the paragraphs I've chopped up that would take these quotes out of context. Absent that, you're coming across as someone who believes that an angry, aggression tone will somehow make the request go away. So, where are these paragraphs that you say will show that I've destroyed proper context.

Where in their Report does the NIST say that they rejected the computer model concerning floor truss fire tests?

 

Your memory is failing you. I posted that picture because you stated that the core columns couldn't stand on their own. So I provided you with images of the core structure during construction to show how the columns were cross-braced. Remember the photo I posted of the WTC under construction; the one you thought was from the 1930s, which showed that you had been arguing the limitations of something that you didn't even recognize when it was put in front of your face? Yeah, that core structure. Then you asked what the core columns were cross-braced to. So I provided an image of the cross-bracing attached to a core column. You need to remember what you asked for.

 

Well, thats from the section where they talk about the floors being airtight before the aircraft impact, If not airtight then the combustibles and ventilation flow determined direction of fires, you chopped it up to make it sound like they are saying their werent enough combustibles after the floors for any fire after plane impact. Not that the fires are why the centre columns failed anyway

And this part is from office combustibles. Tell our readers if you think fuel loading refers to jet fuel or office combustibles that fuel a fire, tell out readers what the focus floors are. Tell our readers if you think "core areas" refers to the columns in the core of the building or by "core areas" are they talking about reception area, lunch room mail room

Chopping out one sentence there is interntionally misleading, sad and desperate

 

F.R Greening's report

 

I didn't chop anything up to misrepresent what the NIST said. I quoted them verbatim. And I certainly didn't say there weren't enough combustibles for a fire after impact. You're just making that up. And what do you mean by saying, "Not that the fires are why the center columns failed anyway"? I've shown you the quote from the NIST that tells you that if it weren't for the fire, the building would not have collapsed. You forgot what you've been shown

And I'm dying to know why on earth you would make an issue of what is meant by the "core area."

 

So show me again where NIST say fire was the reason the centre columns failed

 

Are you trying to claim core areas in analysis of office combustibles on the focus floors is the same thing as the core area of the building where the centre columns are?

 

Certainly looks like you did it intentionally. Why not quote the whole section? Why just chop out a few sentences

It will certainly look like to everyone you are intentionally trying to be misleading


Well, thats assuming anyone else is actually reading this crap by now, the 74th page

 

I Am.......Every Single Post Of The Now....1470.....



Cheers Glen.

 

LOLz, ok

 

From NIST: the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires.

 

Gee, I wonder what is meant by "core area." Do you think it has to do with the . . . oh, I don't know--core area?

 

Yes, from the floor trusses heating sagging, pulling in the columns, centre columns didnt fail as a direct result of fires, no one said they didnt, they were never designed to stand up by themselves anyway

To I have to copy and past the collapse sequence YET AGAIN!

 

This is funny. You believe that this:

"The core space contained relatively little combustible mass." (NCSTAR 1-5 p49 para7)

"The fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible." (NCSTAR 1-5 p51 para2)

is not self explanatory. It says what it says, and it is quite clear. If you really believe that context would take away from its meaning, then provide the context that would do so. You were asked to do this before, but failed.

 

So you think there they are talking about the core area of the building where the centre columns were, there....there wasnt enough office furniture, paper, cubicle partitions in between the elevator shafts?

 

Grrr, they are talking about before the plane hit, its got nothing to do with anything about the collapse

 

Well we can get to the bottom of this rather quickly. To the best of your ability, tell us what you think this means about the core structure when it comes to the idea of column-weakening fires. Keep in mind that this is part of their Report.

"The core space contained relatively little combustible mass." (NCSTAR 1-5 p49 para7)

"The fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible." (NCSTAR 1-5 p51 para2)

 

Again with the forgetting what you've been shown concerning fire testing on the floors systems:

“The tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page xliv, para3)

“Finding 7: All four tests demonstrated that the floor assemblies were capable of sagging without failure. The unrestrained test, which had two 0.875 in. bolts fastening the main truss to the truss seats, did not sag sufficiently to bear on the bolts.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para4)

“Finding 8: All four test assemblies supported their full design load under standard fire conditions for two hours without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5)

I'm curious to hear how you will downplay these test results.

 

While you guys are talking can someone explain to me how Building 7 fell down again.