9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
I don't believe you at all (that ultimate compressive strength = compressive yield strength); everything else I came across suggested otherwise, particularly the requirement of the NYC building code 1968 which would make no sense if that is true. And I'm pissed off that you led me to believe that that came out of a reference manual when it did not. And it was because I was confident about my position that I was able to root out how your post was misleading.MikeMcc said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Some of Jazzz's best one liners:
Up to post 1150 so far.
You are criticised for several things, oddly this would be the last thing i'd "attack" you for.
They were.Jazzz said:
It was?Jazzz said:
It wasn't, there was.Jazzz said:
No it wasn't.Jazzz said:
But they didn't.Jazzz said:
You don't get that from explosivesJazzz said:
He likes this fact, pity it's wrong.Jazzz said:
Steel's about 15-30 times as elastic as wood.Jazzz said:
Oddly it's a beam that was cut after the event with a cutting torch.Jazzz said:
Sounds about right, therefore jazzz claims it as a fact.Jazzz said:
Yes Jazzz, a perfectly logical thought process.Jazzz said:
Everything about the collapse is not in keeping with Controlled Demolition. When asked for examples of CD that back him up, he ran off.Jazzz said:
It did, Jazzz was talking shite again.Jazzz said:
Understatement aside (cutting a few beams, just a few), he ignores the major source of heat, office furnishings, kerosene was rather minor in comparison.Jazzz said:
Up to post 1150 so far.
Jazzz said:
You are criticised for several things, oddly this would be the last thing i'd "attack" you for.
Get this into your head, and I don't frankly CARE how pissed off you are, once it gets past the yield point it will continue to deform until it fails or the load is removed. Items that have been deformed will appear to have a higher yield strength if the load is reapplied but it's ductility will be reduced. My points are still correct.Jazzz said:
What on earth do you mean 'appear to have a higher yield strength'? If you are admitting that compressive strength is not the same as a compressive yield point, then that's conceding the point.MikeMcc said:
Yes of course the steel will deform past the yield point, it will simply deform but take increasing loads at the same time.
Jazzz said:
Jazz, have you ever stopped to think that 9/11 was the first time buildings of that size, structure and consistency were demolished in the way they were? (i.e. planes full of fuel flying into them at a rate of knotts)
How can you make assessments like this, as if it offers proof? They are only guesstimates at best.
You have very flimsy "evidence" my friend, sorry.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Source? Sorry, forgot who posted it. Only Jazzz is exempt from providing sources that don't dribble on themselves.Jazzz said:
I don't think you should comment on this unless you've read the corresponding section in the thread (i.e. several pages of thread in which I didn't see a single post from you).Pete the Greek said:
Jazz, have you ever stopped to think that 9/11 was the first time buildings of that size, structure and consistency were demolished in the way they were? (i.e. planes full of fuel flying into them at a rate of knotts)
How can you make assessments like this, as if it offers proof? They are only guesstimates at best.
You have very flimsy "evidence" my friend, sorry.
Jazzz said:
You obviously know not the art of the 'lurker'
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I don't think you should point any fingers untill you find a single building collapse brought about by HE, or thermite, that looks anything like the towers coming down.Jazzz said:
Bob_the_lost said:
That's my point.
There isn't one.
Jazz is stuck, I feel. Oh dear.
It's just like tensile strength being greater than the tensile yield point. The steel will compress up to the yield point, then it will give a certain amount (but not fail), then you will be able to increase the load and it will deform more as you do that, up to the point where it fails (the ultimate compressive strength). In the case of A36 steel the compressive strength will significantly greater than the compressive yield point (that's what the specification said by having 'significant reserve capacity' past the yield point).WouldBe said:
this is hilarious.The fact that there are untold witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings. The fact it was filmed. And of course, the fact that the communications from the plane's black boxes and the mobile phone calls were all recorded.
Oh dear, no way any conspiraloon can successfully pick their way through the maze of proof before them.
I wouldn't be a conspiraloon for all the tea in China. Far too much like hard work
eh? WTC7 looked like an absolutely text-book building implosion. And the only thing that looked unlike a controlled demolition of WTCs 1&2 was that it came down from the impact floors downwards, which is no objection because demolition companies could very easily do that if needed.Bob_the_lost said:
Jazzz said:
It looked like a text book implosion? Are you kidding me?
When was the last time you saw one of the tallest buildings in the world fall down because of a jumbo jet ploughing into it?
So what you saw was text book nothing. Text book bullshit, I can't believe I'm reading this.
There's no way you can say that because of the way the buildings came down, they must be because of an inside job.
The incidents were unprecedented. So the text book doesn't exist, because nothing like that happened before.
Have you got it yet? Hello, McFly???
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
NO IT DIDN'T YOU TIT.Jazzz said:
It looked nothing like a text book implosion. I've pointed this out repeatedly, don't you remember?
WTC 1&2 look nothing like CDs, again this has been covered numerous times, do you not remember them either?
You're the hilarious onePete the Greek said:
The fact that there are untold witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings. The fact it was filmed. And of course, the fact that the communications from the plane's black boxes and the mobile phone calls were all recorded.
If you have details about the black box data for flights 11 and 175, well you'll be the first. They are officially not recovered, although two passports were from the same crashes. Also I don't know where you get the idea that the mobile calls from the planes were recorded. That's the very thing - your 'maze of proof', when you look for it, turns into a 'blancmange of proof' - rather insubstantial. I would advise you though to live in your cosy little world of preconceptions though PTG it would all be too unsettling for you.
Bob_the_lost said:
as exasperated as I am.
Jazzz said:You're the hilarious one
That's the very thing - your 'maze of proof', when you look for it, turns into a 'blancmange of proof' - rather insubstantial. I would advise you though to live in your cosy little world of preconceptions though PTG it would all be too unsettling for you.
the mobile phone calls were recorded you imbecile. They were logged.
Oh yeah...and the people on the other end of those calls kinda heard what was going on.
Do you deny that? You do accept that the recipients of the mobile calls heard the same story from each of the people on board, right?
Jazzz said:
I know about as much about 9/11 as your averge person in the street. A lay person's amount. I saw the whole thing on TV after the FIRST plane, and I read the press and have read various articles in the press in successive years since then.
With this lay person's knowledge in mind - I can confidently claim to have more understanding about 9/11 than you, by a country mile.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Come on Jazzz, i'm waiting.
In three posts you've appeared to claim that:Pete the Greek said:
1) Black box data was recovered from the WTC
2) WTC7 was hit by a plane
3) The mobile phone calls from flight 93 were recorded
All of which are completely untrue. Which is in fact pretty much every point you've made. Go back to sleep!
Jazzz said:
you misconstruing sod! i said no such thing!1) I said the black boxes (they are plane equipment, mate) were recovered from the, er, planes.
2) I said the two (twin) towers were hit - and if i didnt state this in words, I hoped this obvious fact would be taken for granted in what I was inferring.
3) The mobile calls were recorded, because I remember clips being played back on TV news reports.
where do you get your ideas from, Jazz?
Badger Kitten
oof
Whenever I read this thread, this is the music I hear in my head 
Badger Kitten said:Whenever I read this thread, this is the music I hear in my head
you know what I think of, now you mention it?
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/reservoirdogs/stuckinthemiddlewithyou.htm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
