FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[DiveCon]

ROFLMAO

you are at least consistently stupid

 

[Christophera]

ROFLMAO

you are at least consistently stupid

There are consistencies, but considering your tendency to misrepresent and your total lack of evidence or valid reasoning, your position is that you assume everyone to be as stupid as you accuse me of being.

The west wall of WTC 1 concrete core is conclusive of the fact there were no steel core columns and there was a very thick concrete wall 300 feet up.

Keeping the methods of mass murder secret is not going to work.

 

[DiveCon]

ROFLMAO

you are at least consistently stupid

There are consistencies, but considering your tendency to misrepresent and your total lack of evidence or valid reasoning, your position is that you assume everyone to be as stupid as you accuse me of being.

The west wall of WTC 1 concrete core is conclusive of the fact there were no steel core columns and there was a very thick concrete wall 300 feet up.

Keeping the methods of mass murder secret is not going to work.

except there is NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE
NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO
the only concrete used above grade was in the floors

 

[Christophera]

ROFLMAO

you are at least consistently stupid

There are consistencies, but considering your tendency to misrepresent and your total lack of evidence or valid reasoning, your position is that you assume everyone to be as stupid as you accuse me of being.

The west wall of WTC 1 concrete core is conclusive of the fact there were no steel core columns and there was a very thick concrete wall 300 feet up.

Keeping the methods of mass murder secret is not going to work.

except there is NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE
NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO
the only concrete used above grade was in the floors

That is what the perpetrators want people to believe, however, since you can provide no evidence of the steel core columns that were also supposed to exist, AND there is so much independently verified evidence showing concrete walls near half way up the building,

it is very clear you will say anything to protect the secret means of mass murder and the interests of the perpetrators.

 

[DiveCon]

There are consistencies, but considering your tendency to misrepresent and your total lack of evidence or valid reasoning, your position is that you assume everyone to be as stupid as you accuse me of being.

The west wall of WTC 1 concrete core is conclusive of the fact there were no steel core columns and there was a very thick concrete wall 300 feet up.

Keeping the methods of mass murder secret is not going to work.

except there is NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE
NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO
the only concrete used above grade was in the floors

That is what the perpetrators want people to believe, however, since you can provide no evidence of the steel core columns that were also supposed to exist, AND there is so much independently verified evidence showing concrete walls near half way up the building,

it is very clear you will say anything to protect the secret means of mass murder and the interests of the perpetrators.

what you are attempting to call "a wall" is actually"a floor"

 

[Christophera]

except there is NO CONCRETE IN THE CORE ABOVE GRADE
NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO
the only concrete used above grade was in the floors

That is what the perpetrators want people to believe, however, since you can provide no evidence of the steel core columns that were also supposed to exist, AND there is so much independently verified evidence showing concrete walls near half way up the building,

it is very clear you will say anything to protect the secret means of mass murder and the interests of the perpetrators.

what you are attempting to call "a wall" is actually"a floor"

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

 

[DiveCon]

That is what the perpetrators want people to believe, however, since you can provide no evidence of the steel core columns that were also supposed to exist, AND there is so much independently verified evidence showing concrete walls near half way up the building,

it is very clear you will say anything to protect the secret means of mass murder and the interests of the perpetrators.

what you are attempting to call "a wall" is actually"a floor"

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

clearly it was one that didnt break apart

 

[elvis]

That is what the perpetrators want people to believe, however, since you can provide no evidence of the steel core columns that were also supposed to exist, AND there is so much independently verified evidence showing concrete walls near half way up the building,

it is very clear you will say anything to protect the secret means of mass murder and the interests of the perpetrators.

what you are attempting to call "a wall" is actually"a floor"

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

Yoko planted bombs in the buildings. She lives in New York. You can't prove she didn't do it.

 

[eots]

what you are attempting to call "a wall" is actually"a floor"

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

Yoko planted bombs in the buildings. She lives in New York. You can't prove she didn't do it.

what a completely stupid waste of time response any logical person would see that a fully resourced criminal; and fire investigation needs to be done to answer the unanswered questions of 9/11

 

[elvis]

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

Yoko planted bombs in the buildings. She lives in New York. You can't prove she didn't do it.

what a completely stupid waste of time response any logical person would see that a fully resourced criminal; and fire investigation needs to be done to answer the unanswered questions of 9/11

I heard it on Alex Jones' radio program.

 

[DiveCon]

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

Yoko planted bombs in the buildings. She lives in New York. You can't prove she didn't do it.

what a completely stupid waste of time response any logical person would see that a fully resourced criminal; and fire investigation needs to be done to answer the unanswered questions of 9/11

what "unanswered" questions?

 

[eots]

Yoko planted bombs in the buildings. She lives in New York. You can't prove she didn't do it.

what a completely stupid waste of time response any logical person would see that a fully resourced criminal; and fire investigation needs to be done to answer the unanswered questions of 9/11

I heard it on Alex Jones' radio program.

another mindless media programmed response...actually I heard it from 9/11 commission members and witnesses as well as lead NIST fire investigators to name a few...I did not however hear it on hannity or read it in popular mechanics

 

[elvis]

what a completely stupid waste of time response any logical person would see that a fully resourced criminal; and fire investigation needs to be done to answer the unanswered questions of 9/11

I heard it on Alex Jones' radio program.

another mindless media programmed response...actually I heard it from 9/11 commission members and witnesses as well as lead NIST fire investigators to name a few...I did not however hear it on hannity or read it in popular mechanics

you heard about Yoko from 9/11 commission members and witnesses? what did they say about her/

 

[eots]

well here is a short list ftom the ex-lead fire investigator at NIST

my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

then there are the questions of Intel from the 9/11 commission

 

[elvis]

well here is a short list ftom the ex-lead fire investigator at NIST

my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

then there are the questions of Intel from the 9/11 commission

Yoko broke up the Beatles AND the Twins.

 

[eots]

well here is a short list ftom the ex-lead fire investigator at NIST

my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

then there are the questions of Intel from the 9/11 commission

Yoko broke up the Beatles AND the Twins.

and you are a cowardly GOOFBALL without the necessary intellect to comprehend the significance of the unanswered question NIST investigators have posed and the courage required to do so

 

[Christophera]

what you are attempting to call "a wall" is actually"a floor"

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

clearly it was one that didnt break apart

You've answered a question not asked. A ploy of evasion.

Unreasonable. Only one motive can logically be assigned to your act ditzie. Keep the means of mass murder secret in service to the interests of the perpetrators.

 

[DiveCon]

It is clearly too thick and there are no truss beams showing. With the area seen, if it were a floor, there would be several in view.

Where did what you want to call a floor come from? When?

clearly it was one that didnt break apart

You've answered a question not asked. A ploy of evasion.

Unreasonable. Only one motive can logically be assigned to your act ditzie. Keep the means of mass murder secret in service to the interests of the perpetrators.

you nare a fucking moron
i answered your question
there were 110 fucking floors in each tower
do you really need me to name WHAT floor it came from

 

[Christophera]

clearly it was one that didnt break apart

You've answered a question not asked. A ploy of evasion.

Unreasonable. Only one motive can logically be assigned to your act ditzie. Keep the means of mass murder secret in service to the interests of the perpetrators.

you nare a fucking moron
i answered your question
there were 110 fucking floors in each tower
do you really need me to name WHAT floor it came from

If it was falling it came from above and there was nothing above. No said it was one that did not break. It is too thick for a floor and there is no place above for it to fall from. It begins vertical so it would have to have fallen to that position.

Where does it come from?

 

[DiveCon]

You've answered a question not asked. A ploy of evasion.

Unreasonable. Only one motive can logically be assigned to your act ditzie. Keep the means of mass murder secret in service to the interests of the perpetrators.

you nare a fucking moron
i answered your question
there were 110 fucking floors in each tower
do you really need me to name WHAT floor it came from

If it was falling it came from above and there was nothing above. No said it was one that did not break. It is too thick for a floor and there is no place above for it to fall from. It begins vertical so it would have to have fallen to that position.

Where does it come from?

of course that gif doesnt show
do you have a fucking clue what a GIF is?
that is NOT a video