3 debunkers discussing wtc7

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

3 debunkers discussing wtc7
Topic Started: Feb 28 2008, 01:54 PM (542 Views)
einsteen	Feb 28 2008, 01:54 PM Post #1
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516&hl=en A very objective, balanced and unbiased discussion. A circlejerk of strawmans and who cares about "pull it", and of course the firemen are not in on it. Why no video conference with Danny Jowenko for example, or Hugo Bachmann, Jorg Schneider or Heikki Kurttila. Is there any puke animated gif around ??
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Chris Sarns	Mar 3 2008, 01:53 AM Post #2
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Einsteen Thanks for the video. The retired Batallion Chief made a very important comment. "They also did some preliminary studies and they found that if one column on the long span side of this building went out, the entire set of floors up to the roof would collapse. That is definitely not to city code because the city code states that if one column is removed, the other columns have to take up the load." Did the builders of WTC 7 get a variance, and if so, how did they compensate? Was the NIST preliminary study wrong, and the failure of one column would not cause a vertical collapse? Edited by Chris Sarns, Mar 3 2008, 01:55 AM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


einsteen	Mar 3 2008, 03:09 AM Post #3
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	I shouldn't call the chief a debunker because he isn't. Chris, what kind of NIST study was that ? I think it was probably: a column failed first and the rest failed therefore we have to assume that a progressive collapse is triggered. Who on earth designs building that collapse completely if you remove a single column and who on earth believes that ? Check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_Roth In this list of 100 buildings there is probably a wtc7-like
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Headspin	Mar 3 2008, 05:55 AM Post #4
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	they spend some time at 6-7 minutes talking about the definition of "pull-it" and why it doesn't relate to building demolition and collapses, then at 13 minutes they start using the word "pull" in terms of building collapses Arthur says he thinks the chief was asking silverstein if there was any reason why the firefighters should stay there, thern pomeroo says "he certainly wouldn't be asking for permission", then gets the response "yeah right" from arthur - can't they even get the script straight? A property developer "wouldn't know about demolition terminology" <giggles> there is an edit at 14:39 - anyone know why that is?
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


sevon	Mar 3 2008, 01:27 PM Post #5
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Chris Sarns Mar 3 2008, 01:53 AM That is definitely not to city code because the city code states.... You would need to look at the codes at the time of construction, not the current codes.
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


sevon	Mar 3 2008, 01:28 PM Post #6
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	headspin they spend some time at 6-7 minutes talking about the definition of "pull-it" and why it doesn't relate to building demolition and collapses, then at 13 minutes they start using the word "pull" in terms of building collapses "Pull" is used when they are literally "pulling" a building down with cables. Edited by sevon, Mar 3 2008, 01:28 PM.
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Headspin	Mar 3 2008, 02:08 PM Post #7
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	sevon Mar 3 2008, 01:28 PM headspin they spend some time at 6-7 minutes talking about the definition of "pull-it" and why it doesn't relate to building demolition and collapses, then at 13 minutes they start using the word "pull" in terms of building collapses "Pull" is used when they are literally "pulling" a building down with cables. so it is a slang term used in demolition then? I wonder if Larry the property developer knows how to use the word in prescise context when in conversation regarding demolishing a building? Edited by Headspin, Mar 3 2008, 02:15 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


sevon	Mar 3 2008, 05:35 PM Post #8
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Headspin Mar 3 2008, 02:08 PM sevon Mar 3 2008, 01:28 PM headspin they spend some time at 6-7 minutes talking about the definition of "pull-it" and why it doesn't relate to building demolition and collapses, then at 13 minutes they start using the word "pull" in terms of building collapses "Pull" is used when they are literally "pulling" a building down with cables. so it is a slang term used in demolition then? I wonder if Larry the property developer knows how to use the word in prescise context when in conversation regarding demolishing a building? It's not slang, it's literal. Pull as in pulling with cables. It has nothing to do with explosives or demolition using explosives.
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Chris Sarns	Mar 4 2008, 02:44 AM Post #9
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	'Pull it' is something JERFers do, in a circle, on the Stundy Award thread Edited by Chris Sarns, Mar 4 2008, 02:45 AM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »