NIST-after kink is formed, the building is 'falling through the air'

Originally posted by Griff

The changes, adopted at the ICC hearings ex]

I thought you said that you were "sure" that they refused to adopt them.

So in order to prove that point, you link to a source that says they DO adopt them?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I thought you said that you were "sure" that they refused to adopt them.

So in order to prove that point, you link to a source that says they DO adopt them?

You are just showing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension again Seymour.

The following are the nine model building and fire code change proposals consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended:

*

Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.
*

Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

Try reading some time.


[edit on 2/1/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 2/1/2009 by Griff]

Give it up Seymour Butz, your a rookie at this, Griff is a old pro and knows his stuff. His profession deals the with issue's you are arguing about.
Quit now and stop embarrassing yourself.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Give it up Seymour Butz, your a rookie at this, Griff is a old pro and knows his stuff. His profession deals the with issue's you are arguing about.
Quit now and stop embarrassing yourself.

LMAO-

He usue his knowledge to push CT's.

He doesn't use his knowledge to educate CTerz about the truth however.

It is HE who is embarassing himself.

There are many issues that I have corrected him on, like the fact that the steel thickness of the ext columns tapered much in the same way that the core columns did.

ETA: what do you think will happen when these issues are CLEARLY addressed in a manner that not even he can deny?

My bet - he will NOT change his overall stance that something is wrong.

It can be shown to people like this that they are wrong, but it is a pipe dream to think that they will listen that their overall premises are just wrong.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Seymour Butz]

The topic of this thread is already being discussed in this other thread.

NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

I will close this one, so please continue the discussion on the collapse of WTC7 in that thread.

If some of you want to continue discussing building codes, then I suggest moving the discussion to another thread and do it without the personal attacks.