Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dr. Griscom wins 9/11 Physics Debate; Dr. Griscom wins 9/11 Physics Debate. No scientists supoprt official theory
Topic Started: Mar 21 2014, 10:47 PM (1,292 Views)
darion
Member Avatar

Looks like Ranb is back but wont post here anymore....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

Appendix A on page 306 does not contain any actual details as to why the WTC should withstand an airliner impact. It merely contains a claims that a detailed analysis by Worthington, Skilling Helle and Jackson was carried out. There are no details of the analysis that can be examined in the document you linked to.

In fact a few pages earlier you might have read on page 302 the following.

Quote:
 
No documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis was available to review the criteria and methods used in the analysis of the aircraft impact into the WTC towers, or to provide details on the ability of the WTC towers to withstand such impacts.


It is one thing to claim an analysis was performed. It is quite another to allow details of the analysis to be examined by others. I was not aware prior to this that the claims on page 306 actually existed writing, but they still fall far short of proving that the WTC was actually capable of withstanding the impacts/fires on 9/11.

Quote:
 
Unlike the JREF forums we don't slap each other on the back and pump us up with artificial egos. That maybe why this forum is 'dead'...

I think this is exactly what is happening on the LC forum.

Ranb
Edited by Ranb, Aug 26 2014, 02:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Ranb
Aug 26 2014, 02:43 AM
Appendix A on page 306 does not contain any actual details as to why the WTC should withstand an airliner impact. It merely contains a claims that a detailed analysis by Worthington, Skilling Helle and Jackson was carried out. There are no details of the analysis that can be examined in the document you linked to.

In fact a few pages earlier you might have read on page 302 the following.

Quote:
 
No documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis was available to review the criteria and methods used in the analysis of the aircraft impact into the WTC towers, or to provide details on the ability of the WTC towers to withstand such impacts.


It is one thing to claim an analysis was performed. It is quite another to allow details of the analysis to be examined by others. I was not aware prior to this that the claims on page 306 actually existed writing, but they still fall far short of proving that the WTC was actually capable of withstanding the impacts/fires on 9/11.

Quote:
 
Unlike the JREF forums we don't slap each other on the back and pump us up with artificial egos. That maybe why this forum is 'dead'...

I think this is exactly what is happening on the LC forum.

Ranb
JFK
Jul 19 2014, 06:36 AM
If YOU need more evidence than that I suggest YOU file a FOIA with NIST for all the documents referenced on those pages.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

JFK,

Why do you believe the analysis by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson was accurate and enough to cast doubt on the claim that the WTC damage caused by the airliners crashing into them?

Ranb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Ranb
Aug 27 2014, 02:44 AM
JFK,

Why do you believe the analysis by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson was accurate and enough to cast doubt on the claim that the WTC damage caused by the airliners crashing into them?

Ranb
lol. It is obvious that those airliners caused damage to the towers.

HOWEVER, after comparing the blueprints, deciphering the bill of materials used in the actual construction of the towers from the FOIA released "structural analysis program" (SAP 2000) data files, and analyzing pirated Boeing blueprints and bill of materials used in the construction of those planes there is no way in hell that a 767 caused enough damage to completely collapse not one but two towers even if the fire was compounded by the onboard oxygen generators and concentrated at those core columns.

That is why I believe the analysis by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson is accurate.

Ranb, why do you blindly believe everything our government is telling you ?

BTW, I know why there was radiation detected at the site afterwards, do you ?
( No, it has nothing to do with mini nukes or space beams... The answer is MUCH more mundane. )


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

I should have said "enough damage to cause the building to fall". So you have actually seen the raw data contributing to the done analysis by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson?

It's not that I believe the government, it's that I don't have any compelling reason to believe you.

I really don't care if radiation was detected at the site. I work at a shipyard as a radiological control technician; I can detect radiation nearly anywhere with the equipment at my disposal. Unless someone detected fission product activity, I'm not really interested in what activity they found there.

Ranb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Ranb
Aug 27 2014, 04:27 PM
So you have actually seen the raw data contributing to the done analysis by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson?

It's not that I believe the government, it's that I don't have any compelling reason to believe you.
I have not.
It should however be noted that that study was based on a Boeing 707 which is actually heavier than a 767, and the planes on 9/11 were not going as fast as what was hypothesized in that study. ( based on the radar tracks since those black boxes mysteriously vanished... LOL. )

Please show me where I asked you to believe me... I ENCOURAGE everyone to seek out the facts for themselves ( regarding whatever aspect of the events of 9/11 happens to interest them be it structural, financial, political, etc.... ) and draw their own conclusions from that. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ManAgainstCrime
Member Avatar

Ranb
 
Remember one of the cornerstones of the 9/11 truth movement is that if something did not happen in the past,it is impossible or unlikely to happen at all.


False, obviously.

If C has been explained by D many times in history, but C has never been explained by F, then it doesn't rule out F, but D is the stronger hypothesis. Bunkers behave as though D is somehow weaker! With F being automatically the better explanation. Then finding those who consider D the best hypothesis to be a bit nutty.

Bunker logic:
Long, curved yellow fruits have a history of being bananas.
This long, curved yellow fruit could be another banana.
No long, curved yellow fruits have a history of being strawberries.
This long, curved yellow fruit could be the first long, curved yellow strawberry.
Therefore it's a strawberry.


Edited by ManAgainstCrime, Sep 2 2014, 04:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ManAgainstCrime
Member Avatar

Ranb
 
I was not aware prior to this that the claims on page 306 actually existed writing, but they still fall far short of proving that the WTC was actually capable of withstanding the impacts/fires on 9/11.

The conclusion wasn't that WTC would withstand impact/fire. The 707 going at 600ph would cause structural damage and start fires, obviously. There's just no reason to think they'd completely flop to the ground in clouds of pulverized dust.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Breaking News · Next Topic »
Add Reply