Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Ace Acme

(1,464 posts)
25. You're going in circles
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 01:18 PM
Oct 2013

As soon as you've finished denying that your claim is that while the interior of the building fell down the non-structural curtain wall remained standing and fell retaining its form without distortion, you're back to asserting the claim you denied you were making.

The wet paper bag matters because the non-structural curtain wall cannot remain standing undisturbed while the perimeter framing that supports it folds up like a wet paper bag. The video doesn't need to show the E wall to show that it doesn't fold up. The fact that the NE corner of the building remains straight and plum during the collapse shows that it didn't fold up.

Why you should devote so much verbiage to something you clearly know nothing about is a complete mystery.

You do this so verbosely that nobody is even going to read your stuff to see it. You seem constitutionally unable to admit that you're wrong, and willing to risk making a complete fool of yourself to try to deny it.

The usual reason for bringing a building down symmetrically in a controlled demolition is to avoid damage to adjacent structures--which can lead to messy insurance claims and the like--and to ensure complete destruction of the building, which otherwise might have a partial collapse or topple and leave substantial portions of the building intact.

Column 79 was a hollow column in the lower stories in that it was an H-column with welded plates from flange to flange (See NCSTAR 1-9 Fig. 2-23, and also Fig L-17 in the Appendix L report). You are showing your ignorance when you deny this. You can google search this in less time than it has taken me to type these two sentences. Try using the image search.

Your lazy assumption that you know everything is incompatible with the quest for truth. Am I correct in supposing that you have been the Chief Bully on this board for years, tasked with bullshitting all discussion into pointlessness?





Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"Where are you now, we need you brother," says the YouTube poster William Seger Jul 2013 #1
How do you explain the Thermite? damnedifIknow Jul 2013 #2
No need to explain things that didn't happen William Seger Jul 2013 #3
I hate to chastise you, but... tomk52 Aug 2013 #4
Who has replicated Dr. Millette's findings? And what peer-reviewed journal has published them? Ace Acme Oct 2013 #8
I guess we don't need all the demolition experts then. ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #5
Not if the demolition experts want to remain employed: cpwm17 Aug 2013 #6
"the building will come straight down" William Seger Aug 2013 #7
WTC7 came straight down in terms of its E and W walls remaining plumb. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #9
Pointless point William Seger Oct 2013 #10
Point: it came straight down absolutely for most of its fall. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #11
Hmm, good point -- except for being wrong William Seger Oct 2013 #12
The NIST simulations bore no resemblance to reality Ace Acme Oct 2013 #13
The NIST simulation William Seger Oct 2013 #14
Oh brother Ace Acme Oct 2013 #15
Oh brother, read it again: The CURTAIN WALL panels are not in the model William Seger Oct 2013 #16
Are you claiming that the perimeter columns fell down with the rest of the structure Ace Acme Oct 2013 #17
Umm, no William Seger Oct 2013 #18
What you expect is not what NIST's models show Ace Acme Oct 2013 #19
You are pointlessly running around in circles William Seger Oct 2013 #20
You seem to be obfuscating Ace Acme Oct 2013 #21
Obfuscating? You seem to not understand much of what I say William Seger Oct 2013 #22
It's not my fault I don't understand what you say Ace Acme Oct 2013 #23
I can explain it to you; I can't understand it for you William Seger Oct 2013 #24
You're going in circles Ace Acme Oct 2013 #25
Here we go round the Mulberry bush William Seger Nov 2013 #27
You believe that the perimeter columns remain standing when the interior of the building fell down. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #30
Another pointless point William Seger Nov 2013 #31
The NIST simulations bore no resemblance to reality Ace Acme Nov 2013 #32
Your "wet paper bag" is completely pointless William Seger Nov 2013 #34
It's not my "wet paper bag"; it's NIST's "wet paper bag" Ace Acme Nov 2013 #35
"... it shows that NIST's computer models are completely off the beam." William Seger Nov 2013 #36
The models bear no resemblance to reality. Nor do your claims. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #37
I've watched that many times, and what I see... William Seger Nov 2013 #38
What you "see" in the video is your own fantasy about an explanation Ace Acme Nov 2013 #39
You claim "no resemblance" but then just ignore a list of resemblances William Seger Nov 2013 #40
The behavior of the building exterior in the sim bears no resemblance to reality. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #41
Why would Saddam go through the trouble and risk of planting explosives in buildings greyl Nov 2013 #26
Who said Saddam did anything at all? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #28
Members of Bush Gang Swore Under Oath Saddam Was Behind 9/11 greyl Nov 2013 #29
Did they swear up and down that Saddam planted explosives in the the towers? nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»This message was self-del...»Reply #25