Do you believe the official 911 story?

[daws101]

two more farts in a row from you Dawgshit.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two more farts in a row from you Dawgshit.

and another from you dawgshit.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

two more farts in a row from you Dawgshit.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

two more farts in a row from you Dawgshit.

and another from you dawgshit.

 

[eots]

 

[eots]

I think a massive steel framed building does not fall in secs from an office fire and the failure of a single column

as always you'd be wrong... example:[ame=http://youtu.be/j-zczJXSxnw]Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" - YouTube[/ame]
they said kinda the same thing about this.

A building missing 18 floors is no longer stable...you'd think the "researchers" would know this.

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

 

[Gamolon]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Can you show me the tests of how fireproofing reacts when impacted by jet debris?

Also, as you know, since you're a contractor, fireproofing is applied to EVERY single component in a structure including the connections. Contractors ALWAYS follow uniform application thickness and NEVER cut corners right?

 

[daws101]

as always you'd be wrong... example:Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" - YouTube
they said kinda the same thing about this.

A building missing 18 floors is no longer stable...you'd think the "researchers" would know this.

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

yeah, and?
odd that you would use this since it is not evidence of a planted explosive or a conspiracy.

 

[eots]

A building missing 18 floors is no longer stable...you'd think the "researchers" would know this.

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

yeah, and?
odd that you would use this since it is not evidence of a planted explosive or a conspiracy.

no testing for explosive residue was done even though NIST says blowing a single column could cause the collapse

 

[daws101]

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

yeah, and?
odd that you would use this since it is not evidence of a planted explosive or a conspiracy.

no testing for explosive residue was done even though NIST says blowing a single column could cause the collapse

as stated before if an explosive was used even you could have spotted it.. residue testing is for what type of explosive was used not IF ONE WAS USED. Id say you're stupid but that's stating the obvious.

 

[eots]

yeah, and?
odd that you would use this since it is not evidence of a planted explosive or a conspiracy.

no testing for explosive residue was done even though NIST says blowing a single column could cause the collapse

as stated before if an explosive was used even you could have spotted it.. residue testing is for what type of explosive was used not IF ONE WAS USED. Id say you're stupid but that's stating the obvious.

really.. how would it be...spotted

 

[daws101]

no testing for explosive residue was done even though NIST says blowing a single column could cause the collapse

as stated before if an explosive was used even you could have spotted it.. residue testing is for what type of explosive was used not IF ONE WAS USED. Id say you're stupid but that's stating the obvious.

really.. how would it be...spotted

you clam to that an explosive was used and you don't know what to look for? highly fucking specious reasoning .

 

[eots]

as stated before if an explosive was used even you could have spotted it.. residue testing is for what type of explosive was used not IF ONE WAS USED. Id say you're stupid but that's stating the obvious.

really.. how would it be...spotted

you clam to that an explosive was used and you don't know what to look for? highly fucking specious reasoning .

is your babbling incoherent sentence another way of avoiding the question because you have no clue what one would look for ?...I think it is

 

[Gamolon]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Can you show me the tests of how fireproofing reacts when impacted by jet debris?

Also, as you know, since you're a contractor, fireproofing is applied to EVERY single component in a structure including the connections. Contractors ALWAYS follow uniform application thickness and NEVER cut corners right?

wihosa,

You seemed to have missed this post...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I rest my case.

 

[Gamolon]

I rest my case.

No amount of stress/or load can cause that to happen right?

I HAD to be a space beam...

 

[Mr. Jones]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Can you show me the tests of how fireproofing reacts when impacted by jet debris?

Also, as you know, since you're a contractor, fireproofing is applied to EVERY single component in a structure including the connections. Contractors ALWAYS follow uniform application thickness and NEVER cut corners right?

Again this shit Gamolon spews that can not be backed up by any NIST testing. In fact we have shown that the testing and findings by NIST actually go against total and global collapses. Their studies have concluded that the fires did not attain temps high enough to weaken the steel supports. We also know that the fires were transient and moved consuming combustibles in the process, and anyone who knows anything about steel also knows that when this occurs, any steel that was affected by heat/fire will cool, and REGAIN much of its strength.
A look at the NIST report also tells us that the metallurgical studies performed on the recovered steel shows that NIST was surprised at how well it performed, even beyond their expectations, and that indeed the 'safety" factor was more then they assumed as well.

The fucking buildings can be seen to explode, forcibly ejecting tons of outer perimeter walls hundreds of feet away and imbedding into adjacent buildings.
They didn't simply collapse due to "weakening" and a look at the many videos can attest to this. The force needed to pulverize the concrete, over come the unaffected more robust lower parts of the buildings, AND eject tons of massive material, simply could not have been caused by low temp fires that NIST admitted moved, (thus allowing the steel to cool).
Gamolon wants to believe that once steel is heated to a weakened state it remains this way even though it has a chance to cool???LOL!!! This is just one of the many reasons why he is full of shit..

Can you show me the tests of how fireproofing reacts when impacted by jet debris?

Can you? Can NIST? Please do so..

 

[Gamolon]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Can you show me the tests of how fireproofing reacts when impacted by jet debris?

Also, as you know, since you're a contractor, fireproofing is applied to EVERY single component in a structure including the connections. Contractors ALWAYS follow uniform application thickness and NEVER cut corners right?

wihosa,

You seemed to have missed this post...

Hmmmm...

Seems wihosa ran away with his tail between his legs...

Typical.

 

[daws101]

really.. how would it be...spotted

you clam to that an explosive was used and you don't know what to look for? highly fucking specious reasoning .

is your babbling incoherent sentence another way of avoiding the question because you have no clue what one would look for ?...I think it is

classic eots dodge!

 

[daws101]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Answer something wihosa.

Are you suggesting that I could remove/weaken any steel columns on a given floor to a point that the remaining columns could have up to four times the load applied to them and remain structurally sound? How does one calculate the current safety factor of a building with a damaged structure?

For example. When the plane impacted the south tower, what was the saftey factor of floors 77 through 85 at that time? Was it still a safety factor of 4?



Can you show me the tests of how fireproofing reacts when impacted by jet debris?

Also, as you know, since you're a contractor, fireproofing is applied to EVERY single component in a structure including the connections. Contractors ALWAYS follow uniform application thickness and NEVER cut corners right?

Again this shit Gamolon spews that can not be backed up by any NIST testing. In fact we have shown that the testing and findings by NIST actually go against total and global collapses. Their studies have concluded that the fires did not attain temps high enough to weaken the steel supports. We also know that the fires were transient and moved consuming combustibles in the process, and anyone who knows anything about steel also knows that when this occurs, any steel that was affected by heat/fire will cool, and REGAIN much of its strength.
A look at the NIST report also tells us that the metallurgical studies performed on the recovered steel shows that NIST was surprised at how well it performed, even beyond their expectations, and that indeed the 'safety" factor was more then they assumed as well.

The fucking buildings can be seen to explode, forcibly ejecting tons of outer perimeter walls hundreds of feet away and imbedding into adjacent buildings.
They didn't simply collapse due to "weakening" and a look at the many videos can attest to this. The force needed to pulverize the concrete, over come the unaffected more robust lower parts of the buildings, AND eject tons of massive material, simply could not have been caused by low temp fires that NIST admitted moved, (thus allowing the steel to cool).
Gamolon wants to believe that once steel is heated to a weakened state it remains this way even though it has a chance to cool???LOL!!! This is just one of the many reasons why he is full of shit..

Can you show me the tests of how fireproofing reacts when impacted by jet debris?

Can you? Can NIST? Please do so..

"The fucking buildings can be seen to explode, forcibly ejecting tons of outer perimeter walls hundreds of feet away and imbedding into adjacent buildings"-sister jones

that's not an explosion, it's a collapse, the force you are yammering about is was not caused by explosives but the release of millions of joules of kinetic energy.
the ejecting was cause by the parts of the towers colliding with each other while falling.
and that changed the trajectory.
besides there is no visual or audio or physical evidence to prove any explosive were used.