Yet more garbage information from AE911Truth...

Discussion in '9/11' started by Gamolon, Feb 22, 2017.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In a desperate attempt to try and support their beliefs, they have recently published a document discussing controlled demolition as the cause of the Plasco building collapse in Tehran. Within that document is the following excerpt:
    This is the same garbage spewed by Tony Szamboti in another previous thread when discussing the Twin Towers:
    This means that half the columns on one side of a structure (perimeter and core columns) can be removed and there will be no collapse. The math used above is this. The percentage of strength reduction of all the columns in a structure equally reduces the FOS (Factor of Safety) of said structure and as long as that FOS remains above 1, the building is safe from collapse.

    The Plasco building discussed in their document is said to have 46 total columns. 42 around the perimeter and 4 central columns. This means that the 4 center columns and the 4 corner columns could be severed/cut and the building would not be expected to collapse as according to the thinking above, this would not reduce the FOS below 1. I mean, as we all know, the FOS is evenly distributed among all columns in a structure regardless of size and strength right?

    Gotta love these "pearls of wisdom"...

    :roll:
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So why don't you email them and explain how "absurd" their assessment is and that you know better? (post your "concern" and their response here lol)

    Personally, I agree the entire exercise at AE911T is a waste (just like their debates with OCT defenders, especially those whose only qualifications are as a tour guide) because it really has nothing to do with 9/11 and distracts from the real issues. It doesn't matter if the Plasco building collapsed naturally as a result of fire or was deliberately taken down, it doesn't change any of the facts about 9/11 either way. There are so many other issues that are so much more relevant and critical.

    See there is something we can agree on after all but not for the same reason(s).
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Everything you posted above is off topic Bobby. The topic is AE911 Truth's information regarding their supposed understanding of FOS and how it applies to structures. It's not about your opinion regarding AE911 truth as a group, your opinion about OCT defenders and their qualifications, the OCT, the actual collapse of the Plasco building, or other issues you deem relevant and critical.

    If you aren't going to refute or agree with what I posted using relevant information, leave my thread and go post in one of your own.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that's all a bunch of nonsense. It seems you have no clue what you posted.

    And what on earth do you think it is they believe that they're allegedly "desperately attempting to try and support"?
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is? Can you quote any part of your post that deals with the FOS and how it applies to structures? I won't hold my breath.

    :roll:

    Read my initial post. Or don't YOU have a clue as to what I posted?
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I quoted the initial premise of your thread, the part you now want to skip over. Had you not posted that, I would probably not have participated in this thread.

    See above, you're the one who wants to ignore your initial premise.
     

Share This Page