Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SAYIT I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
SAYIT I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
and btw NIST determined that the building was not structurally vulnerable
and the failure of that single column under any circumstance would have resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence...you know...the theory you claim to support...
Explain the wreckage and the light poles...As usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.
When something happens for the first time and remains unexplained those with an open mind want proof. Assertions are not proof. NIST has offered no science for its assertion that fire caused a modern steel framed high rise to collapse at near free fall speeds.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.
Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.
Finally, building seven is the only such building to ever have collapsed supposedly due to a moderate office fire. Yes moderate. Do a google search, you will find,any examples of similar buildings that were more involved in fire and burned longer yet had no total collapse. Just use your own eyes (look at the video of building seven, its obviously controlled demo)and common sense. If all it took to bring down a building was a fire, why are controlled demolition companies in business? If one wanted to bring down a building, just light it on fire!
I can't figure out who or how, I don't have the facts, but I'm not afraid to listen to licensed architects and structural engineers. If you have the courage of your conviction then Go to the AE911 site.
It's time for a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power.if you name calling nay sayers are right you will have the proof. If real science is provided that shows that for the first time ever a fire caused the complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise I will be prove wrong.
I'm not afraid how about you?
As usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.
I'm not afraid how about you?
SAYIT I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
and btw NIST determined that the building was not structurally vulnerable
and the failure of that single column under any circumstance would have resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence...you know...the theory you claim to support...
SAYIT I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
and btw NIST determined that the building was not structurally vulnerable
and the failure of that single column under any circumstance would have resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence...you know...the theory you claim to support...
The single column " theory" if ridiculous. There are literally hundreds of columns in a structure like that. It's like saying if a single stud was removed from a wood frame building it would fall down. It's laughable. Believe me, I've demoed wood frame structures ( a garage and a 60 year old UN-permitted guest house). They don't just fall down and the column/beam connections are far more rugged in steel frames than wood.
explain the wreckage and the light poles...as usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.
When something happens for the first time and remains unexplained those with an open mind want proof. Assertions are not proof. Nist has offered no science for its assertion that fire caused a modern steel framed high rise to collapse at near free fall speeds.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.
Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.
Finally, building seven is the only such building to ever have collapsed supposedly due to a moderate office fire. Yes moderate. Do a google search, you will find,any examples of similar buildings that were more involved in fire and burned longer yet had no total collapse. Just use your own eyes (look at the video of building seven, its obviously controlled demo)and common sense. If all it took to bring down a building was a fire, why are controlled demolition companies in business? If one wanted to bring down a building, just light it on fire!
I can't figure out who or how, i don't have the facts, but i'm not afraid to listen to licensed architects and structural engineers. If you have the courage of your conviction then go to the ae911 site.
It's time for a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power.if you name calling nay sayers are right you will have the proof. If real science is provided that shows that for the first time ever a fire caused the complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise i will be prove wrong.
I'm not afraid how about you?
If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.
explain the wreckage and the light poles...as usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.
When something happens for the first time and remains unexplained those with an open mind want proof. Assertions are not proof. Nist has offered no science for its assertion that fire caused a modern steel framed high rise to collapse at near free fall speeds.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.
Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.
Finally, building seven is the only such building to ever have collapsed supposedly due to a moderate office fire. Yes moderate. Do a google search, you will find,any examples of similar buildings that were more involved in fire and burned longer yet had no total collapse. Just use your own eyes (look at the video of building seven, its obviously controlled demo)and common sense. If all it took to bring down a building was a fire, why are controlled demolition companies in business? If one wanted to bring down a building, just light it on fire!
I can't figure out who or how, i don't have the facts, but i'm not afraid to listen to licensed architects and structural engineers. If you have the courage of your conviction then go to the ae911 site.
It's time for a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power.if you name calling nay sayers are right you will have the proof. If real science is provided that shows that for the first time ever a fire caused the complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise i will be prove wrong.
I'm not afraid how about you?
If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.
no one was talking about the pentagon or your light pole cunty
corn
As one who just hours ago posted an altered NIST response to a question, your credibilty and POV are of no value, Princess. You're a fraud.
lol.. it was your post that was altered dip-shit mine came directly from NIST
Your edited version came from some other site..fuck what a joke you are
There ya go! Right out of the CT hand book! When caught in a lie, lie some more. Of course, the reality of your lying is recorded:
Quote: SAYIT
And now you believe the NIST report? I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
Quote: eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
Nowhere near the actual NIST answer and without a link ... how convenient!
I gave you the 9/11 CT version with a link which was word for word the same as the NIST version. I'd give you credit for showing your face after getting caught red-handed, Princess, but I find no redeeming value to a lying CT skank. Sorry.
Unless someone proves otherwise yes.
explain the wreckage and the light poles...
If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.
no one was talking about the pentagon or your light pole cunty
corn
LO...Thats all that broken down old troll ever mentions anymore. He still will stubbornly say the 9-11 commission is accurate even tho we have posted information that shows it isn't and even the panelists agreed.
lol.. it was your post that was altered dip-shit mine came directly from NIST
Your edited version came from some other site..fuck what a joke you are
There ya go! Right out of the CT hand book! When caught in a lie, lie some more. Of course, the reality of your lying is recorded:
Quote: SAYIT
And now you believe the NIST report? I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
Quote: eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
Nowhere near the actual NIST answer and without a link ... how convenient!
I gave you the 9/11 CT version with a link which was word for word the same as the NIST version. I'd give you credit for showing your face after getting caught red-handed, Princess, but I find no redeeming value to a lying CT skank. Sorry.
STFU ya lying skank. NIST lied, and so do you.
You tried to claim that Leslie Robertson NEVER claimed to have seen melting steel, and I posted a video where he shows you're a liar.
You tried to claim it was "molten aluminum" 70 feet below the ground IN ALL 3 BUILDINGS, when the towers had only 22,000 lbs of aluminum in each tower (according to your "debunking site") compared to 200,000 tons of steel in each tower.
And WTC 7 had NO ALUMINUM COVERING AND FUCKING BOEING PLANE INSIDE OF IT!
If anyone fits the label of liar, it is you, and the OCT that you try to defend with LIES..
Unless someone proves otherwise yes.
What are you referring to sock?
The timing of the collapse is mystifying.
10 seconds would the right time for an aerodynamically perfect object to FREE FALL from a height of 1761 feet.
There ya go! Right out of the CT hand book! When caught in a lie, lie some more. Of course, the reality of your lying is recorded:
Quote: SAYIT
And now you believe the NIST report? I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
Quote: eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
Nowhere near the actual NIST answer and without a link ... how convenient!
I gave you the 9/11 CT version with a link which was word for word the same as the NIST version. I'd give you credit for showing your face after getting caught red-handed, Princess, but I find no redeeming value to a lying CT skank. Sorry.
STFU ya lying skank. NIST lied, and so do you.
You tried to claim that Leslie Robertson NEVER claimed to have seen melting steel, and I posted a video where he shows you're a liar.
You tried to claim it was "molten aluminum" 70 feet below the ground IN ALL 3 BUILDINGS, when the towers had only 22,000 lbs of aluminum in each tower (according to your "debunking site") compared to 200,000 tons of steel in each tower.
And WTC 7 had NO ALUMINUM COVERING AND FUCKING BOEING PLANE INSIDE OF IT!
If anyone fits the label of liar, it is you, and the OCT that you try to defend with LIES..
Couldn't have been molten steel. There weren't any temperatures hot enough to melt steel.
So what was it?
STFU ya lying skank. NIST lied, and so do you.
You tried to claim that Leslie Robertson NEVER claimed to have seen melting steel, and I posted a video where he shows you're a liar.
You tried to claim it was "molten aluminum" 70 feet below the ground IN ALL 3 BUILDINGS, when the towers had only 22,000 lbs of aluminum in each tower (according to your "debunking site") compared to 200,000 tons of steel in each tower.
And WTC 7 had NO ALUMINUM COVERING AND FUCKING BOEING PLANE INSIDE OF IT!
If anyone fits the label of liar, it is you, and the OCT that you try to defend with LIES..
Couldn't have been molten steel. There weren't any temperatures hot enough to melt steel.
So what was it?
It sure as fuck wasn't aluminum like you want people to believe. Why don't you find where in the NIST report this question is answered? After all, they were tasked with doing a thorough and proper investigation....Oh wait...looks like they didn't..Well then it appears that they weren't honest, credible, or thorough, and their integrity is shot.
Face it, you have not produced a viable argument in your suggestion it was "probably" aluminum...none.
Care to point out why rational thinking people should trust their theory? BTW....Provide your answer in the proper thread. This one is asks if we believe we the 9-11 story, and my answer is a resounding fuck no!
It sure as fuck wasn't aluminum like you want people to believe. Why don't you find where in the NIST report this question is answered?
It sure as fuck wasn't aluminum like you want people to believe. Why don't you find where in the NIST report this question is answered?
YOU want to know because you think the towers were brought down by thermite/explosives based on false information and bad science. YOU think the high temps in the debris pile was from thermite which is what created the supposed "melted steel".
The molten steel claim has even less evidence than the molten aluminum claim, yet you choose, like an idiot, to believe it.
not even close to the truth multiple reports from credible witlessness of both molten metal and excessive temperatures after the event
Like I said above, the number one nail in your molten steel coffin is that there weren't sufficient temperatures to have melted steel. You, eots, and everyone else who believes in the conspiracy has shown that right?
wrong ...again ..there weren't sufficient temperatures to have WEAKENED steel in any of the evidence not destroyed
Plus the fact that thermite would NOT have burned for weeks.
thermite is not required to burn for weeks only to create the excessive temperatures in the first place ...the super-heated material was still hot or burning for weeks.. not the thermite
I asked you above. Now what genius?
you tell me...genius
STFU ya lying skank. NIST lied, and so do you.
You tried to claim that Leslie Robertson NEVER claimed to have seen melting steel, and I posted a video where he shows you're a liar.
You tried to claim it was "molten aluminum" 70 feet below the ground IN ALL 3 BUILDINGS, when the towers had only 22,000 lbs of aluminum in each tower (according to your "debunking site") compared to 200,000 tons of steel in each tower.
And WTC 7 had NO ALUMINUM COVERING AND FUCKING BOEING PLANE INSIDE OF IT!
If anyone fits the label of liar, it is you, and the OCT that you try to defend with LIES..
Couldn't have been molten steel. There weren't any temperatures hot enough to melt steel.
So what was it?
It sure as fuck wasn't aluminum like you want people to believe. Why don't you find where in the NIST report this question is answered? After all, they were tasked with doing a thorough and proper investigation....Oh wait...looks like they didn't..Well then it appears that they weren't honest, credible, or thorough, and their integrity is shot.
Face it, you have not produced a viable argument in your suggestion it was "probably" aluminum...none.
Care to point out why rational thinking people should trust their theory? BTW....Provide your answer in the proper thread. This one is asks if we believe we the 9-11 story, and my answer is a resounding fuck no!
