Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

I asked,

"How can it be a test for fire prevention? Have you ever seen steel burn, Parados?"

Quote:

the towers fell because of gravity i believe

An overly simplistic comment from a simpleton.

please, you're too kind

Did you not argue that the truss passed the e119 test?

Now you want to ignore the fact that unprotected steel can not and never will pass that test.

The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

Now you want to ignore the fact that unprotected steel can not and never will pass that test.

means that I said what you said above, in red, marked as 1)? Nowhere in the quote that you have provided, marked 2), does it say anything about "unprotected steel".

The trusses in the WTC did NOT have full protection because a plane hit the building.

Because the trusses did NOT have full protection any claim that they passed the ASTM E119 test is a red herring and not scientific in nature since it has NOTHING to do with the condition of the trusses in the towers.

You ignore the fact that the plane hit the towers

So.. let's recap.

You argue that protected steel wouldn't be affected by the fires because of the E119 test.

No, I didn't.

I point out that a plane hit the towers so the steel is no longer protected.

Yes, you have made that assumption. Many people have. That's the problem with the popular mechanics mentality.

You argue that maybe it was the unprotected steel that passed the test.

No, I didn't. I asked whether the test was ever done without insulation. I asked whether that might not be a valid test.

I point out that unprotected steel can NOT pass the test.

That all depends on the parameters, does it not?

You argue you never claimed unprotected steel was in your argument.

Did I?

Your own postings confirm it. The trusses didn't have full protection.

I point out that unprotected steel can NOT pass the test.

That all depends on the parameters, does it not?

Quote:

Your own postings confirm it. The trusses didn't have full protection.

My postings confirm what? What is "it"?

You argue that protected steel wouldn't be affected by the fires because of the E119 test.

No, I didn't.

The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

So..
Let me get this right..

You are arguing that there is no credible evidence that a plane hitting a building at 500 mph and punching a hole in a building would have knocked fire prevention from steel. You are arguing that in spite of the fact that such fire protection can be easily knocked off by hand it all would have stayed on the steel.

And you think I am making unsupported assumptions?

If you don't know the parameters then, ...

Seriously? You're pulling a Clinton in order to avoid continuing the discussion?

That's pretty pathetic. It puts all of your grammar-police rants into question, if you can't follow a simple conversation.