| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels.
|
Classic chek. He has spewed enough and now has begun his usual thread exist strategy. He'll keep spouting this random ad hominem for post after post until nothing substantiative is being said anymore. That's how he admits he is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels.
|
Classic chek. He has spewed enough and now has begun his usual thread exist strategy. He'll keep spouting this random ad hominem for post after post until nothing substantiative is being said anymore. That's how he admits he is wrong. |
I no longer see any point in persisting with you.
The Pixels statement is not true - but what do I care what you choose to believe?
Knock yourselves out with your false little world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
What I don't understand is, why would NIST falsely claim that UL fire resistance test data was missing and then proceed to replicate the test themselves? A test that, as they expected it would, PASSED AND ESTABLISHED A BASELINE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE UL RATING.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels. |
So you can prove that these documents exist, and that NIST ignored them?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels. |
So you can prove that these documents exist, and that NIST ignored them? |
Indirectly through the court case that we already went through before when this exact topic came up yet you choose to not remember it so what purpose does pursuing it serve now?
And NIST didn't 'ignore' it they conveniently chose to 'not find it'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
What I don't understand is, why would NIST falsely claim that UL fire resistance test data was missing and then proceed to replicate the test themselves? A test that, as they expected it would, PASSED AND ESTABLISHED A BASELINE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE UL RATING. |
By the same token, what purpose did demolishing WTC7 serve?
On the face of it, it seems unnecessary, yet they did. Go figure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels. |
So you can prove that these documents exist, and that NIST ignored them? |
Indirectly through the court case that we already went through before when this exact topic came up yet you choose to not remember it so what purpose does pursuing it serve now?
And NIST didn't 'ignore' it they conveniently chose to 'not find it'. |
No, you never actually proved the documents existed. If you had, you'd have posted them here too.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
What I don't understand is, why would NIST falsely claim that UL fire resistance test data was missing and then proceed to replicate the test themselves? A test that, as they expected it would, PASSED AND ESTABLISHED A BASELINE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE UL RATING. |
By the same token, what purpose did demolishing WTC7 serve?
On the face of it, it seems unnecessary, yet they did. Go figure. |
Wait a minute...NIST did it???
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
What I don't understand is, why would NIST falsely claim that UL fire resistance test data was missing and then proceed to replicate the test themselves? A test that, as they expected it would, PASSED AND ESTABLISHED A BASELINE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE UL RATING. |
By the same token, what purpose did demolishing WTC7 serve?
On the face of it, it seems unnecessary, yet they did. Go figure. |
Wait a minute...NIST did it??? |
Perhaps I should re-phrase that after all... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels.
|
Classic chek. He has spewed enough and now has begun his usual thread exist strategy. He'll keep spouting this random ad hominem for post after post until nothing substantiative is being said anymore. That's how he admits he is wrong. |
I no longer see any point in persisting with you.
The Pixels statement is not true - but what do I care what you choose to believe?
Knock yourselves out with your false little world. |
It would be great if JHR could set up an ignore feature so we could just blank blatherers like AS out: it would improve the flow and quality of debate no end, the guy is a disgrace of irrelevance and diversion. Other forums have them and they work very well
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Having demolished all of your arguments to pieces over the course of the last few months, I'm glad to see you guys want me to go away. It's hard to ignore the facts when they are constantly thrown in your face. I understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The above is an excellent example of what AS (and his support act) believe to be exercises in logic, but in reality are merely meaningless intellectual white noise posing as reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | It would be great if JHR could set up an ignore feature so we could just blank blatherers like AS out: it would improve the flow and quality of debate no end, the guy is a disgrace of irrelevance and diversion. Other forums have them and they work very well |
Very very good idea.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels. |
So you can prove that these documents exist, and that NIST ignored them? |
Indirectly through the court case that we already went through before when this exact topic came up yet you choose to not remember it so what purpose does pursuing it serve now?
And NIST didn't 'ignore' it they conveniently chose to 'not find it'. |
No, you never actually proved the documents existed. If you had, you'd have posted them here too. |
You see this is the kind of stupidity your JREFfer logic leads you into.
The documents are known to exist - but have since 'disappeared'. Their existence is indirectly proved. Now you - and only you and your cohorts - charge that they therefore never have existed, which is a fallacious step that only you contend. Here it is again, though I suspect - in fact I'm damn sure - you will still fail to grasp the significance:
"On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. ( City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133)
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE."
Which we've been through before, and demonstrates not only your dishonest and convenient memory problems, but the sheer futility of debating with you.
You haven't proved anything but that single point - that debate with robotic response idiots is futile - let alone shown in any way whatsoever that Kevin Ryan has been shown to be 'wrong' which was your original contention before your distraction tactic kicked in.
Hence my response - 'pathetic', which I stand by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels. |
So you can prove that these documents exist, and that NIST ignored them? |
Indirectly through the court case that we already went through before when this exact topic came up yet you choose to not remember it so what purpose does pursuing it serve now?
And NIST didn't 'ignore' it they conveniently chose to 'not find it'. |
No, you never actually proved the documents existed. If you had, you'd have posted them here too. |
You see this is the kind of stupidity your JREFfer logic leads you into.
The documents are known to exist - but have since 'disappeared'. Their existence is indirectly proved. Now you - and only you and your cohorts - charge that they therefore never have existed, which is a fallacious step that only you contend. Here it is again, though I suspect - in fact I'm damn sure - you will still fail to grasp the significance:
"On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. ( City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133)
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE."
Which we've been through before, and demonstrates not only your dishonest and convenient memory problems, but the sheer futility of debating with you.
You haven't proved anything but that single point - that debate with robotic response idiots is futile - let alone shown in any way whatsoever that Kevin Ryan has been shown to be 'wrong' which was your original contention before your distraction tactic kicked in.
Hence my response - 'pathetic', which I stand by. |
1. The telegram was a sales pitch, not an analysis.
2. The telegram does not give any indication that a detailed technical analysis was performed for a plane crash that took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11--penetration to the core, dislodging of fire protective coating, and disabled active fire suppression systems.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
Let's see, his first complaint, review of documents:
"The review of documents was important because the building designers made claims about their performance in jetliner crashes that were highly relevant to NIST's investigation. NIST avoided mentioning the historic claims, and claimed that documents supporting them -- such as the UL fire resistance test data and Skilling's fire resistance analysis -- were missing."
Yet he, like you, fails to prove that such analysis even exists. How does he know that the documents were ignored by NIST, and were not actually in existence? |
Pathetic, even by your standards Pixels. |
So you can prove that these documents exist, and that NIST ignored them? |
Indirectly through the court case that we already went through before when this exact topic came up yet you choose to not remember it so what purpose does pursuing it serve now?
And NIST didn't 'ignore' it they conveniently chose to 'not find it'. |
No, you never actually proved the documents existed. If you had, you'd have posted them here too. |
You see this is the kind of stupidity your JREFfer logic leads you into.
The documents are known to exist - but have since 'disappeared'. Their existence is indirectly proved. Now you - and only you and your cohorts - charge that they therefore never have existed, which is a fallacious step that only you contend. Here it is again, though I suspect - in fact I'm damn sure - you will still fail to grasp the significance:
"On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. ( City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133)
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE."
Which we've been through before, and demonstrates not only your dishonest and convenient memory problems, but the sheer futility of debating with you.
You haven't proved anything but that single point - that debate with robotic response idiots is futile - let alone shown in any way whatsoever that Kevin Ryan has been shown to be 'wrong' which was your original contention before your distraction tactic kicked in.
Hence my response - 'pathetic', which I stand by. |
1. The telegram was a sales pitch, not an analysis.
2. The telegram does not give any indication that a detailed technical analysis was performed for a plane crash that took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11--penetration to the core, dislodging of fire protective coating, and disabled active fire suppression systems. |
Point 1. -The telegram itself isn't the analysis, it refers to the analysis.
Point 2. - This is merely your uninformed contention against that of a world class engineer who calculated and considered your meagre objections in addition several hundred more factors and scenarios than you can shake your rather small and ineffective stick at. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | 1. The telegram was a sales pitch, not an analysis.
2. The telegram does not give any indication that a detailed technical analysis was performed for a plane crash that took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11--penetration to the core, dislodging of fire protective coating, and disabled active fire suppression systems. |
Point 1. -The telegram itself isn't the analysis, it refers to the analysis.
Point 2. - This is merely your uninformed contention against that of a world class engineer who calculated and considered your meagre objections in addition several hundred more factors and scenarios than you can shake your rather small and ineffective stick at. |
My contention is that the telegram you quoted does not give any indication that your contention is true. Despite your frequent repetition of point 2, you've never provided any evidence of the nature of this analysis, other than a statement made in an article that included an interview with Skilling:
| Quote: | "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
...
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." |
That's it. We know nothing about the technical assumptions that were made or the nature of the analysis that led them to their conclusions.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="chipmunk stew"] | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | 1. The telegram was a sales pitch, not an analysis.
2. The telegram does not give any indication that a detailed technical analysis was performed for a plane crash that took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11--penetration to the core, dislodging of fire protective coating, and disabled active fire suppression systems. |
Point 1. -The telegram itself isn't the analysis, it refers to the analysis.
Point 2. - This is merely your uninformed contention against that of a world class engineer who calculated and considered your meagre objections in addition several hundred more factors and scenarios than you can shake your rather small and ineffective stick at. |
My contention is that the telegram you quoted does not give any indication that your contention is true. Despite your frequent repetition of point 2, you've never provided any evidence of the nature of this analysis, other than a statement made in an article that included an interview with Skilling:
| Quote: | | "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much." |
My further contention in response to your contention is that you rather conveniently forget that "the preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings".
Note the word 'preliminary', indicating that the main analysis is not being referred to at that point in time.
There is actually a further quote - possibly in City in the Sky, which I don't have to hand at the moment - where Skilling refers to consideration of a pilot of a fully fuelled transatlantic airliner having a heart attack and diving into the Towers, causing even more extensive damage than happened on 9/11. Naturally I don't expect that to be accepted by the ever reliable in-denial team, but is nevertheless worth mentioning.
[quote="chipmunk stew"]Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
| chek wrote: | | "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." |
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | That's it. We know nothing about the technical assumptions that were made or the nature of the analysis that led them to their conclusions. |
Arrangements seem to have been made to ensure we could not refer to these ananlyses either. But their existence is nevertheless indirectly shown through the medium of the Wien challenge.
Call me suspicious, but I'm pretty damn sure that Leslie Robertson being part of the investigation -or cover-up team, as I prefer to call them - team would know something about how that situation arose.
I would reiterate again that an engineer with prize-winning experience of major global building projects does not make unsubstantiated claims for buildings - especially those that break new ground, and on which he has been technically challenged - lightly; nor can those claims then be credibly challenged with no foundation to do so by a bunch of guys on the internet with an all too transparent agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | My further contention in response to your contention is that you rather conveniently forget that "the preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings".
Note the word 'preliminary', indicating that the main analysis is not being referred to at that point in time. |
The 1200 pages and over 100 detailed drawings mentioned covered the total structural analysis, not just the effects of a plane crash.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | I would reiterate again that an engineer with prize-winning experience of major global building projects does not make unsubstantiated claims for buildings - especially those that break new ground, and on which he has been technically challenged - lightly; |
I agree.
| chek wrote: | | nor can those claims then be credibly challenged with no foundation to do so by a bunch of guys on the internet with an all too transparent agenda. |
I agree. Do you?:
| chek wrote: | | Call me suspicious, but I'm pretty damn sure that Leslie Robertson being part of the investigation -or cover-up team, as I prefer to call them - team would know something about how that situation arose. |
What I'm challenging is your claim that Skilling's statement says what you claim it says. Skilling does not say whether or not they took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | I would reiterate again that an engineer with prize-winning experience of major global building projects does not make unsubstantiated claims for buildings - especially those that break new ground, and on which he has been technically challenged - lightly; |
I agree.
| chek wrote: | | nor can those claims then be credibly challenged with no foundation to do so by a bunch of guys on the internet with an all too transparent agenda. |
I agree. Do you?:
| chek wrote: | | Call me suspicious, but I'm pretty damn sure that Leslie Robertson being part of the investigation -or cover-up team, as I prefer to call them - team would know something about how that situation arose. |
What I'm challenging is your claim that Skilling's statement says what you claim it says. Skilling does not say whether or not they took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11. |
He calculated for a fully-fuelled airliner of a size comparable to type used on 911 crashing into the buildings at a greater velocity.
What do you contend he forgot to account for?
A greater choice of on-board catering and different crew uniforms? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | I would reiterate again that an engineer with prize-winning experience of major global building projects does not make unsubstantiated claims for buildings - especially those that break new ground, and on which he has been technically challenged - lightly; |
I agree.
| chek wrote: | | nor can those claims then be credibly challenged with no foundation to do so by a bunch of guys on the internet with an all too transparent agenda. |
I agree. Do you?:
| chek wrote: | | Call me suspicious, but I'm pretty damn sure that Leslie Robertson being part of the investigation -or cover-up team, as I prefer to call them - team would know something about how that situation arose. |
What I'm challenging is your claim that Skilling's statement says what you claim it says. Skilling does not say whether or not they took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11. |
He calculated for a fully-fuelled airliner of a size comparable to type used on 911 crashing into the buildings at a greater velocity. |
The 600MPH figure did not come from Skilling, nor did the word "fully-fuelled".
| Quote: | | What do you contend he forgot to account for? |
I contend that we don't know what his team accounted for. For instance, did their analysis account for the loss of passive and active fire suppression systems? We don't know.
We also don't know how extensive the analysis was. It could have ranged anywhere from bar napkin calculations to large-scale number-crunching corroborated and informed by extensive physical experiments. It was probably somewhere in between. It almost certainly was not accompanied by physical tests--there is absolutely no record or recollection of such tests.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="chipmunk stew"][quote="chek"] | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | I would reiterate again that an engineer with prize-winning experience of major global building projects does not make unsubstantiated claims for buildings - especially those that break new ground, and on which he has been technically challenged - lightly; |
I agree.
| chek wrote: | | nor can those claims then be credibly challenged with no foundation to do so by a bunch of guys on the internet with an all too transparent agenda. |
I agree. Do you?:
| chek wrote: | | Call me suspicious, but I'm pretty damn sure that Leslie Robertson being part of the investigation -or cover-up team, as I prefer to call them - team would know something about how that situation arose. |
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | What I'm challenging is your claim that Skilling's statement says what you claim it says. Skilling does not say whether or not they took into consideration the effects that were observed on 9/11. |
He calculated for a fully-fuelled airliner of a size comparable to type used on 911 crashing into the buildings at a greater velocity. |
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | The 600MPH figure did not come from Skilling, nor did the word "fully-fuelled". |
Thre is no direct quote from Skilling regarding this, but the 1964 white paper summary states that this speed of collision for a B707/DC-8 class aircraft was calculated. The only direct quote to substantiate it is Frank Demartini's "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it".
However I can also add anecdotally that Skilling when considering the worst that could happen during the design stage worked on the basis of a transatlantic airliner pilot losing control and diving into one of the Towers.
That must be from one of the books I've researched because I can find no trace of that interview online, so without a source your acceptance is not required ,but is worth mentioning.
| Quote: | | What do you contend he forgot to account for? |
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | I contend that we don't know what his team accounted for. For instance, did their analysis account for the loss of passive and active fire suppression systems? We don't know. |
I believe I recall there was no sprinkler system before the '93 bombing.
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | We also don't know how extensive the analysis was. It could have ranged anywhere from bar napkin calculations to large-scale number-crunching corroborated and informed by extensive physical experiments. It was probably somewhere in between. It almost certainly was not accompanied by physical tests--there is absolutely no record or recollection of such tests. |
Of course it's easy to dismiss it now, as if the 1960's were the stone age but I can assure you that engineers were perfectly capable of calculating the forces involved in structures and catastrophic damage to them. The principles do not change.
This was the decade of the XB-70 Mach 3 bomber, the Apollo program and, at the time, the tallest Towers in the world. Just because it was before the age of the personal computer does not mean we are talking about some hick agrarian-era project. Implying as much doesn't fool anyone old enough to know better.
You may be right (or not) that no physical tests were done, but again data from the known effects of similar events (e.g. The Empire State/B-25 strike) would have been included in such calculations. That event was after all the reason for considering the possibility and its modern day equivalent originally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that, if we ever feel like downloading unknown files from an unknown source on to our computers we'll be grateful for your posting.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
Thanks for that, if we ever feel like downloading unknown files from an unknown source on to our computers we'll be grateful for your posting. |
Post above edited to remove porn link.
Please notify mods of such things - then they can be deleted. Don't reply to these posts - it creates more work in that I had to edit your post to delete the original porn link.
Thank you.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
Thanks for that, if we ever feel like downloading unknown files from an unknown source on to our computers we'll be grateful for your posting. |
Post above edited to remove porn link.
Please notify mods of such things - then they can be deleted. Don't reply to these posts - it creates more work in that I had to edit your post to delete the original porn link.
Thank you. |
I shall bear that in mind in future, Andrew.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
