William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

[Blake]

I
when i said 'their,' which i misspelled, I meant the floor. the central columns were connected to the outer columsn by the trellis. REally though this is a red herring.

I see...... so when you said "I am an 'ME''', you misspelled and meant "I am not an 'ME'". Is that a red herring too?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This message is hidden because Blake is on your ignore list.

sweet ambrosia

[The Power Hour.]

This Fuzzy vato may be more than Chump and Blake can deal with?

[AntiChrist]

This Fuzzy vato may be more than Chump and Blake can deal with?

Signing in under numerous troll names and giving yourself props is pretty lame.


By the way, that DarrinS dude is kicking some serious twoofer ass.

[ChumpDumper]

I see...... so when you said "I am an 'ME''', you misspelled and meant "I am not an 'ME'". Is that a red herring too?

[ChumpDumper]

I never said that the central columns sagged. What I said ws that they weakened. How does a vertical column sag? What I said was

when i said 'their,' which i misspelled, I meant the floor. the central columns were connected to the outer columsn by the trellis. REally though this is a red herring.

It's not a red herring at all. You sucked at making your point.

At the end of the day the central columns weakening was integral to their scenario which you were claiming was attributed only by the floor which is wrong. My original argument still stands.

You STILL don't understand at all.

Of course the weakening of ALL the columns is integral to the collapse theory.

The weakening of the columns is not integral to the sagging of the floors.

Really though, this is a red herring. You have done nothing to even come close to disputing the NIST's theory and conclusions -- but we can't expect you to do so since your understanding of the theory itself is severely lacking.

It's like claiming to be an mechanical engineer when you haven't finished school.

Baby steps....

[Blake]

careful....he'll put you on ignore too

hey mouse, let me borrow one of your trolls so fuzz can read what I write.

let me have the anti christ one.

edit: I forgot.....you have a 'blake.' troll

lemme borrow it

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not a red herring at all. You sucked at making your point.

You STILL don't understand at all.

Of course the weakening of ALL the columns is integral to the collapse theory.

The weakening of the columns is not integral to the sagging of the floors.

Really though, this is a red herring. You have done nothing to even come close to disputing the NIST's theory and conclusions -- but we can't expect you to do so since your understanding of the theory itself is severely lacking.

It's like claiming to be an mechanical engineer when you haven't finished school.

Baby steps....

From the NIST report:

significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged

Condradicts you saying:

The weakening of the columns is not integral to the sagging of the floors.

Go ahead and argue more minutiae.

[ChumpDumper]

From the NIST report:



Condradicts you saying:

Not really. They were all weakened.

So what?

Go ahead and argue more minutiae.

Why don't you tell us all your alternative explanation for the bowing of the perimeter columns.

We've been waiting a day now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not really. They were all weakened.

So what?

Why don't you tell us all your alternative explanation for the bowing of the perimeter columns.

We've been waiting a day now.

So what? You were wrong bag. You were telling me to come back when I have a better understanding. Well you thought that the fires caused the bowing. IOW youre a ing hypocrite and you should come back when you have a clue as to what went on.

[Blake]

So what? You were wrong bag. You were telling me to come back when I have a better understanding. Well you thought that the fires caused the bowing. IOW youre a ing hypocrite and you should come back when you have a clue as to what went on.

I should put him on ignore for these kinds of hurtful posts.

.....sweet ambrosia

[ChumpDumper]

So what? You were wrong bag. You were telling me to come back when I have a better understanding. Well you thought that the fires caused the bowing.

Uh, yeah -- because they did. You are the one saying they didn't. I just asked you for your alternative explanation. Have you lost the ability to understand English now?

IOW youre a ing hypocrite and you should come back when you have a clue as to what went on.

You get funnier as you get more wrong.

[Earth]

Signing in under numerous troll names and giving yourself props is pretty lame.
.

Getting you to notice makes it all worth it

[911]

So who won the debate?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, no twoofer offered an alternative explanation for anything, so Bush won by default.

[mouse]

Maybe I can shed some light on this subject!

[DarrinS]

Maybe I can shed some light on this subject!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh, yeah -- because they did. You are the one saying they didn't. I just asked you for your alternative explanation. Have you lost the ability to understand English now?

You get funnier as you get more wrong.

See this is what I mean by you and youre red herrings. I explain how the collapse of the building was dependent on the central columns being weakened and how given the fact that peoplewere able to walk through the central portion of the building which would be impossilbe at 1000 degrees. Go stick your face in a broiler and see how long you can keep it there. That is half the temp they are claing that was being radiated onto the central columns.

You say this is not the case and quote a part of the NIST FAQ without context. You claim it was only the floors and that I do not know what I am talking about and thus should go away. When I put in the context that led up to your quote which states the columns weakening led to the floors sagging. At this point you resort to smilies and insulting me. Well at thispoint its clear that you try and hide your lack of understanding physical law behind bluster and insults.

Now you are trying to toss out another red herring: whats our alternative hypothesis. Who gives a ? At the end of the day just because I have no alternative explanation does not make it such that the eyewitness testimony of those from the upper floors does not directly contradict the NIST model.

[ChumpDumper]

See this is what I mean by you and youre red herrings. I explain how the collapse of the building was dependent on the central columns being weakened and how given the fact that peoplewere able to walk through the central portion of the building which would be impossilbe at 1000 degrees. Go stick your face in a broiler and see how long you can keep it there. That is half the temp they are claing that was being radiated onto the central columns.

the collapse initiated at the perimeter columns. You still have a long way to go before you undertand the theory. You need to understand the theory before you can criticize it.

And again, you don't realize how big this building is. People were able to move down exactly one staircase out of all the possible escape routes in both towers. You are saying that that one stairwell had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to be true.

That's wrong.

I'm sure you'll be angry about that now too.

You say this is not the case and quote a part of the NIST FAQ without context. You claim it was only the floors and that I do not know what I am talking about and thus should go away. When I put in the context that led up to your quote which states the columns weakening led to the floors sagging. At this point you resort to smilies and insulting me. Well at thispoint its clear that you try and hide your lack of understanding physical law behind bluster and insults.

You said the central columns sagged.

You were wrong.

You are angry about it.

We get it.

The floor sagged.

Due to the heat.

Do you understand that?

Sure, central columns could have been weakened too, but how much?

Enough to make the floors sag on their own?

Why is this so important to you? Oh, that's right -- it keeps you from having to provide any alternative explanation.

Now you are trying to toss out another red herring: whats our alternative hypothesis. Who gives a ? At the end of the day just because I have no alternative explanation does not make it such that the eyewitness testimony of those from the upper floors does not directly contradict the NIST model.

So you are saying you will never have an alternative explanation.

So whom are we to believe?

The people with an actual theory that works.

The NIST.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the collapse initiated at the perimeter columns. You still have a long way to go before you undertand the theory. You need to understand the theory before you can criticize it.

And again, you don't realize how big this building is. People were able to move down exactly one staircase out of all the possible escape routes in both towers. You are saying that that one stairwell had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to be true.

That's wrong.

I'm sure you'll be angry about that now too.

You said the central columns sagged.

You were wrong.

You are angry about it.

We get it.

The floor sagged.

Due to the heat.

Do you understand that?

Sure, central columns could have been weakened too, but how much?

Enough to make the floors sag on their own?

Why is this so important to you? Oh, that's right -- it keeps you from having to provide any alternative explanation.

So you are saying you will never have an alternative explanation.

So whom are we to believe?

The people with an actual theory that works.

The NIST.

You cannot read what is in plain english. The NIST faq gives a chronology of events. It clearly states the weakening of the floors and columns. Here is an excerpt of another NIST report giving the chronolgy:

# These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
# The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.

According to NIST, the outer columns were just the last part of a chain of events. It even uses the term 'chain of events' which is exactly what I am talking about. I am not mad, I just realize that you are wrong.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r..._april0505.htm

[ChumpDumper]

You cannot read what is in plain english. The NIST faq gives a chronology of events. It clearly states the weakening of the floors and columns. Here is an excerpt of another NIST report giving the chronolgy:



According to NIST, the outer columns were just the last part of a chain of events. It even uses the term 'chain of events' which is exactly what I am talking about. I am not mad, I just realize that you are wrong.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r..._april0505.htm

Thank you for telling me what I already know.

You are catching up -- very slowly for someone who lied about being a mechanical engineer -- but progress is progress.

Now, you have done nothing to refute the NIST theory except say that Stairwell A in the south tower had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to work.

This is simply untrue.

[DarrinS]

See, even Tonto gets it.

Lone Ranger: What happened, Tonto?

Tonto: Plane crash. Fire burn. Metal bend. Building fall.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thank you for telling me what I already know.

You are catching up -- very slowly for someone who lied about being a mechanical engineer -- but progress is progress.

Now, you have done nothing to refute the NIST theory except say that Stairwell A in the south tower had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to work.

This is simply untrue.

I am sorry you misinterpreted what I was saying about ME. My intention was not to mislead and if it was I certainly would not have explained what it is I do. Even a moron can figure that out. Your labels are meaningless.

If you knew it you certainly do not know how to express it in a way that does not contradict what you supposedly know. Hey at least you finally admit that the central columns failing were instrumental in the collapse. Before you kept babbling about it not mattering how the central columns weakening when you say things like:

Not really. They were all weakened.

So what?

You can pretend you understood the NIST theory all you want. Its obvious that you only thought the end result was important in their model.

I also like how you backtracked from your previous bull assertion that both towers only had a single staircase that was functional. That was bull . In WTC1 multimple staircases were used. But lets look a bit deeper.

Whats cute is how you always hide behind, 'its big, you have no idea of scale.' This is especially cute when it was made apparent that you did not know how scale applied to the thermodynamic model within the building or really any other way. Essentially you basically say, 'its big' when you can't think of anything to say.

Well WTC1 and 2 were 70 yards to a side. The interior core was less than 30 yards to a side. Therefore all people going down the stairs were AT LEAST within 30 yards of these 1000 degree superheated gases and that is making the assumption that the stairwells were on the very opposite side of where the gas was.

That assumption doesnt match eyewitness accounts because:

1) People in WTC2 report being able to see the fires from the stairwell.
2) None of the people in any of stairwells reported conditions that come even close to what it would be like if you were standing less than 60 feet from a 1000 degree airflow from the fires that NIST used as the heat transfer device.

Lets be clear here. NIST does not claim that exposure to the fire caused the steel to increase in temperature. They make that clear with this statement:

In a following set of computations using the Fire Structure Interface, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).

IOW the air on those floors was 1000 degrees not the fires according to NIST.

So what youre saying is that people were able to descend down stairwells where they could see the fires when the air temperature on those floors according to NIST was 1000 degrees.

There is plenty of analysis from metallurgists saying that the model was impossible. Here is a quote from the "Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention" indicating the steel sampled from the effected floors showed no evidence of being effected by temperatures of even 625 degrees.

Abstract Recovered structural steel from the World Trade Center was examined as part of the National Ins ute of Standards and Technology investigation to provide data on potential temperature excursions seen by the steel for input and validation of the fire and thermal finite element models. While numerous experimental techniques were appraised for use during this study, two proved to be practical: assessment of the primer paint on the structural elements and examination of the steel microstructure. Results from these two techniques are presented. Evaluation of primer paint from 21 exterior panel sections, which represent approximately 3% of the panels from fire-involved floors, was conducted and indicated that only three locations may have experienced temperatures over 250°C. Steel microstructures taken from these and other areas on exterior panels exposed to pre-collapse fires showed no evidence of exposure to temperatures exceeding 625°C for times longer than the detectable lower limit of 15 min. The lack of high-temperature excursions observed during this analysis may be related to the protection afforded by intact spray-applied fire-resistant material on the components at the time of exposure.

[ChumpDumper]

I am sorry you misinterpreted what I was saying about ME. My intention was not to mislead and if it was I certainly would not have explained what it is I do. Even a moron can figure that out. Your labels are meaningless.

Of course you wanted to mislead. You worded it very carefully to do so.

If you knew it you certainly do not know how to express it in a way that does not contradict what you supposedly know. Hey at least you finally admit that the central columns failing were instrumental in the collapse. Before you kept babbling about it not mattering how the central columns weakening when you say things like:

My impression ist hey were pretty much going to go when the perimeter columns went since that's what happened at all the levels below the heated one. If you would like to show some calculations showing they would not, I'm waiting.

You can pretend you understood the NIST theory all you want. Its obvious that you only thought the end result was important in their model.

I am completely allowing for the heating of the central columns. I'm not convinced they were integral to the sagging of the floors. They almost certainly happened at the same time -- so there is really nothing to debate here.

I also like how you backtracked from your previous bull assertion that both towers only had a single staircase that was functional. That was bull . In WTC1 multimple staircases were used. But lets look a bit deeper.

I never backed off that assertion because there was only one stairwell that was not blocked at some point. Stairwell A, south tower. You didn't understand that I was repeating my assertion, only being more specific the second time I said it.

Whats cute is how you always hide behind, 'its big, you have no idea of scale.' This is especially cute when it was made apparent that you did not know how scale applied to the thermodynamic model within the building or really any other way. Essentially you basically say, 'its big' when you can't think of anything to say.

I'm saying that it is not necessary for one stairwell to be 1000 degrees for enough of the other building to be hot enough to be weakened to the point of collapse. You are.

Well WTC1 and 2 were 70 yards to a side. The interior core was less than 30 yards to a side. Therefore all people going down the stairs were AT LEAST within 30 yards of these 1000 degree superheated gases and that is making the assumption that the stairwells were on the very opposite side of where the gas was.

I am sitting about 5 yards from the presence of superheated gas in the oven. I am not aflame.

That assumption doesnt match eyewitness accounts because:

1) People in WTC2 report being able to see the fires from the stairwell.

On what floor? Fires were not limited to the impact floors.

2) None of the people in any of stairwells reported conditions that come even close to what it would be like if you were standing less than 60 feet from a 1000 degree airflow from the fires that NIST used as the heat transfer device.

So you are saying I should be on fire right now.

Lets be clear here. NIST does not claim that exposure to the fire caused the steel to increase in temperature. They make that clear with this statement:



IOW the air on those floors was 1000 degrees not the fires according to NIST.

And?

So what youre saying is that people were able to descend down stairwells where they could see the fires when the air temperature on those floors according to NIST was 1000 degrees.

You are saying that people reported seeing fires on the impact floors from stairwell A of the south tower mere minutes before its collapse. Again, you seem to have no idea:

1) What stairwell worked from top to bottom of either tower.

2) How tall the building is and how long it takes to descend 74 floors.

There is plenty of analysis from metallurgists saying that the model was impossible. Here is a quote from the "Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention" indicating the steel sampled from the effected floors showed no evidence of being effected by temperatures of even 625 degrees.

Those are from EXTERIOR panel sections.

Now you don't know what "exterior" means.

This just gets better and better.

There are reports from workers for Underwriters Labs saying that the heat models are and they were the ones contracted by NIST to do the testing of the steel.

Are you seriously going to bring Kevin Ryan into this?

Fantastic!

Please give us all his quotes and include his qualifications from his job at UL.

[Word!]