Popular Mechanics

[LA RAM FAN]

I thought everyone agreed that it pancaked. The point the troofers usually make is that they collapsed at free fall speed AND pancaked, making explosives the only possible explanation.

err dont know where on earth you ever came to that conclusion.NIST has said it pancaked which is impossible to do from a mere collapse of a tower since it would fall gradually.Not at free fall speed like it did.

in order to get a building to free fall at 32' / sec / sec .....what would you have to do to the structural system of the building.....in your own words....

But it wouldnt be free fall speed if it was at 32 seconds.the way we know it came down at freefall speed is all you got to do is time it when it starts collapsing and its timed at 11 seconds which equals free fall speed.in order for the 9/11 Bush dupes such as Divecon to accept the official version,you got to say that the rules of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years dating back to Aristrophes no longer apply anymore and that Sir Issac newton is an idiot.

As I talked with you about before,the evidence is overwhelming that explosives brought the towers down.all you got to do is look at the videos.there is one out there that the mainstream media has suppressed where it shows black billowing smoke rising from the street BEFORE the towers have collapse and you hear explosions going off as well.so the film footage backs up the witnesses testimonys that they heard and saw bright orange yellow explosions going off that came from the BASEMENT below seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above.The CIA screwed up
in their timing when setting off the charges obviously. Not only does the film footage prove explosions were going off before the towers fell but witnesses in the street saw the workers in the building carrying a man on fire who came from the elevator basement below on fire before the plane struck the tower above yelling out-oh my god,theres explosions going off in the basement.But the 9/11 Bush dupes like Divecon are so much in denial,they never watch our videos we show them that prove it all since the truth scares them.

 

[manu1959]

err dont know where on earth you ever came to that conclusion.NIST has said it pancaked which is impossible to do from a mere collapse of a tower since it would fall gradually.Not at free fall speed like it did.

in order to get a building to free fall at 32' / sec / sec .....what would you have to do to the structural system of the building.....in your own words....

But it wouldnt be free fall speed if it was at 32 seconds.the way we know it came down at freefall speed is all you got to do is time it when it starts collapsing and its timed at 11 seconds which equals free fall speed.in order for the 9/11 Bush dupes such as Divecon to accept the official version,you got to say that the rules of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years dating back to Aristrophes no longer apply anymore and that Sir Issac newton is an idiot.

As I talked with you about before,the evidence is overwhelming that explosives brought the towers down.all you got to do is look at the videos.there is one out there that the mainstream media has suppressed where it shows black billowing smoke rising from the street BEFORE the towers have collapse and you hear explosions going off as well.so the film footage backs up the witnesses testimonys that they heard and saw bright orange yellow explosions going off that came from the BASEMENT below seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above.The CIA screwed up
in their timing when setting off the charges obviously. Not only does the film footage prove explosions were going off before the towers fell but witnesses in the street saw the workers in the building carrying a man on fire who came from the elevator basement below on fire before the plane struck the tower above yelling out-oh my god,theres explosions going off in the basement.But the 9/11 Bush dupes like Divecon are so much in denial,they never watch our videos we show them that prove it all since the truth scares them.

free fall is 32' / sec /sec......and you did not tell me what you would have to do to the building to free fall....and not pancake.....

and you are giving the cia credit for this op....no i know you have nothing to stand on.....

 

[eots]

ET FUEL TYPE A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [3]

OK JUST SHUT UP RIGHT NOW WITH YOUR MADE UP FACTS AND GO CLEAN YOUR LITTER BOX OR SOMETHING

with the fireproofing blown off the steal due to the impact...

with the perimeter, truss and core structural system damged.....

with the fire supression system compromised.....

with the jet fuel used as an accelerante to ignite the contents of the office building....

with stored energy of mutiple floors above this point.....

how hot would the fire need to get to weaken the remaining connection and support points and release the stored energy above....

a lot hotter than a kerosene fire can create ...by a 1000 degrees or so.....actually...and the firefighters made it to the 79th floor before reporting fires... and then said they could put them out with two hoses.....a few secs latter the building imploded

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkc0HG2Zssg]YouTube - 9/11 Firefighter Communications In WTC - Part 3[/ame]

 

[LA RAM FAN]

no pancakes ..in a pancake collapse the floors stay intact and the support between gives way...as opposed to the wtc where it was turned to a fine dust

exactly.thats how we know it did not pancake like NIST says it did.

was the sturctural system of the wtc a uniqe system...in other words has a similar building collapsed.....

Hell yeah.It was OVER designed by the engineers to withstand a jet airliner slamming into it.John Skilling the lead engineer-whom NOVA totally ignored the testimony of back in 93 after the first bombing occured,was quoted back in 93 by the new york times saying that when they constructed the towers,they designed it with the idea of an airliner slamming into at speeds up to 600 miles an hour.the highest speed the two airliners reached was 540 mph.They anticipated the fire.He was quoted back then saying-there would be a great loss of life due to the fires,but the structure itself would remain standing.the 9/11 Bush dupes of course will live in denial that he never said that but thats cause they never do any research cause he WAS quoted saying that back then. Not only that but the construction manager Frank Demartini back in jan 01 on MODERN MARVELS on the history channel was quoted saying it could withstand taking a hit from MULTIPLE airliners and it would remain standing.That the towers were like a mosquito netting,that it would be like puncturing a pencil hole through the screen netting on your door.it does absolutley nothjing to it because just like the screen netting,it is an intense grid that cant be harmed by even MULTIPLE airliners hitting it. you can see him on video talking about it if you go to youtube.com and type in 9/11 mysteries or 9/11 in plane site.I have posted those videos here countless numbers of times but the like always,the Bush dupes ignore it.

 

[elvis]

ET FUEL TYPE A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [3]

OK JUST SHUT UP RIGHT NOW WITH YOUR MADE UP FACTS AND GO CLEAN YOUR LITTER BOX OR SOMETHING

Ok, I'll go clean the litter box. Then I'll come back and you'll still be a moron.

ya good response to facts...you make a really strong argument......for how lame you are

I was responding to your idiotic post...

so bite me.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

in order to get a building to free fall at 32' / sec / sec .....what would you have to do to the structural system of the building.....in your own words....

But it wouldnt be free fall speed if it was at 32 seconds.the way we know it came down at freefall speed is all you got to do is time it when it starts collapsing and its timed at 11 seconds which equals free fall speed.in order for the 9/11 Bush dupes such as Divecon to accept the official version,you got to say that the rules of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years dating back to Aristrophes no longer apply anymore and that Sir Issac newton is an idiot.

As I talked with you about before,the evidence is overwhelming that explosives brought the towers down.all you got to do is look at the videos.there is one out there that the mainstream media has suppressed where it shows black billowing smoke rising from the street BEFORE the towers have collapse and you hear explosions going off as well.so the film footage backs up the witnesses testimonys that they heard and saw bright orange yellow explosions going off that came from the BASEMENT below seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above.The CIA screwed up
in their timing when setting off the charges obviously. Not only does the film footage prove explosions were going off before the towers fell but witnesses in the street saw the workers in the building carrying a man on fire who came from the elevator basement below on fire before the plane struck the tower above yelling out-oh my god,theres explosions going off in the basement.But the 9/11 Bush dupes like Divecon are so much in denial,they never watch our videos we show them that prove it all since the truth scares them.

free fall is 32' / sec /sec......and you did not tell me what you would have to do to the building to free fall....and not pancake.....

and you are giving the cia credit for this op....no i know you have nothing to stand on.....

No YOU have nothing to stand on by choosing to only selectively address PARTS of my posts.you only address PARTS of it because you know you cant counter what it says.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iS-amgh0qw&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Firefighter Communications In WTC - Part 8[/ame]

 

[manu1959]

exactly.thats how we know it did not pancake like NIST says it did.

was the sturctural system of the wtc a uniqe system...in other words has a similar building collapsed.....

Hell yeah.It was OVER designed by the engineers to withstand a jet airliner slamming into it.John Skilling the lead engineer-whom NOVA totally ignored the testimony of back in 93 after the first bombing occured,was quoted back in 93 by the new york times saying that when they constructed the towers,they designed it with the idea of an airliner slamming into at speeds up to 600 miles an hour.the highest speed the two airliners reached was 540 mph.They anticipated the fire.He was quoted back then saying-there would be a great loss of life due to the fires,but the structure itself would remain standing.the 9/11 Bush dupes of course will live in denial that he never said that but thats cause they never do any research cause he WAS quoted saying that back then. Not only that but the construction manager Frank Demartini back in jan 01 on MODERN MARVELS on the history channel was quoted saying it could withstand taking a hit from MULTIPLE airliners and it would remain standing.That the towers were like a mosquito netting,that it would be like puncturing a pencil hole through the screen netting on your door.it does absolutley nothjing to it because just like the screen netting,it is an intense grid that cant be harmed by even MULTIPLE airliners hitting it. you can see him on video talking about it if you go to youtube.com and type in 9/11 mysteries or 9/11 in plane site.I have posted those videos here countless numbers of times but the like always,the Bush dupes ignore it.

so do i take it you agree that it is a one of a kind structural system and that there has been no other building like it to colapse ..... what was the size of the plane the building was designed to take a hit from .....

 

[manu1959]

But it wouldnt be free fall speed if it was at 32 seconds.the way we know it came down at freefall speed is all you got to do is time it when it starts collapsing and its timed at 11 seconds which equals free fall speed.in order for the 9/11 Bush dupes such as Divecon to accept the official version,you got to say that the rules of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years dating back to Aristrophes no longer apply anymore and that Sir Issac newton is an idiot.

As I talked with you about before,the evidence is overwhelming that explosives brought the towers down.all you got to do is look at the videos.there is one out there that the mainstream media has suppressed where it shows black billowing smoke rising from the street BEFORE the towers have collapse and you hear explosions going off as well.so the film footage backs up the witnesses testimonys that they heard and saw bright orange yellow explosions going off that came from the BASEMENT below seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above.The CIA screwed up
in their timing when setting off the charges obviously. Not only does the film footage prove explosions were going off before the towers fell but witnesses in the street saw the workers in the building carrying a man on fire who came from the elevator basement below on fire before the plane struck the tower above yelling out-oh my god,theres explosions going off in the basement.But the 9/11 Bush dupes like Divecon are so much in denial,they never watch our videos we show them that prove it all since the truth scares them.

free fall is 32' / sec /sec......and you did not tell me what you would have to do to the building to free fall....and not pancake.....

and you are giving the cia credit for this op....no i know you have nothing to stand on.....

No YOU have nothing to stand on by choosing to only selectively address PARTS of my posts.you only address PARTS of it because you know you cant counter what it says.

i only have one part to my post and you write an esay about nothing and avoid a very simply question.....

to get this building to "free fall" .....what would you have to do to the structural system....

 

[LA RAM FAN]

ET FUEL TYPE A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [3]

OK JUST SHUT UP RIGHT NOW WITH YOUR MADE UP FACTS AND GO CLEAN YOUR LITTER BOX OR SOMETHING

with the fireproofing blown off the steal due to the impact...

with the perimeter, truss and core structural system damged.....

with the fire supression system compromised.....

with the jet fuel used as an accelerante to ignite the contents of the office building....

with stored energy of mutiple floors above this point.....

how hot would the fire need to get to weaken the remaining connection and support points and release the stored energy above....

stop listening to the fairy tales that NOVA tells you.They reinforced it after the 93 bombing with fireproofing to make sure that never happened.The Bush dupes here make themselves look like idiots when they say the firew weakened the steel because if you ever took any science classes,you would know that jet fuel only burns at 1800 degrees. to even begin to weaken steel fire temps have to reach temps of 2700 degrees.until the Bush dupes take some science classes and accept this fact,their just talking out of their ass.I know this cause i have a friend who worked on buildings for over 30 years an is a certified steel worker.

 

[elvis]

ET FUEL TYPE A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [3]

OK JUST SHUT UP RIGHT NOW WITH YOUR MADE UP FACTS AND GO CLEAN YOUR LITTER BOX OR SOMETHING

with the fireproofing blown off the steal due to the impact...

with the perimeter, truss and core structural system damged.....

with the fire supression system compromised.....

with the jet fuel used as an accelerante to ignite the contents of the office building....

with stored energy of mutiple floors above this point.....

how hot would the fire need to get to weaken the remaining connection and support points and release the stored energy above....

stop listening to the fairy tales that NOVA tells you.They reinforced it after the 93 bombing with fireproofing to make sure that never happened.The Bush dupes here make themselves look like idiots when they say the firew weakened the steel because if you ever took any science classes,you would know that jet fuel only burns at 1800 degrees. to even begin to weaken steel fire temps have to reach temps of 2700 degrees.until the Bush dupes take some science classes and accept this fact,their just talking out of their ass.I know this cause i have a friend who worked on buildings for over 30 years an is a certified steel worker.

why don't you submit your argument to a scientific journal or to a physics department at a local university?

 

[eots]

free fall is 32' / sec /sec......and you did not tell me what you would have to do to the building to free fall....and not pancake.....

and you are giving the cia credit for this op....no i know you have nothing to stand on.....

No YOU have nothing to stand on by choosing to only selectively address PARTS of my posts.you only address PARTS of it because you know you cant counter what it says.

i only have one part to my post and you write an esay about nothing and avoid a very simply question.....

to get this building to "free fall" .....what would you have to do to the structural system....

blow it up...like in a controlled demolition

 

[LA RAM FAN]

free fall is 32' / sec /sec......and you did not tell me what you would have to do to the building to free fall....and not pancake.....

and you are giving the cia credit for this op....no i know you have nothing to stand on.....

No YOU have nothing to stand on by choosing to only selectively address PARTS of my posts.you only address PARTS of it because you know you cant counter what it says.

i only have one part to my post and you write an esay about nothing and avoid a very simply question.....

to get this building to "free fall" .....what would you have to do to the structural system....

why are you asking ME,I have never claimed to be a demolition expert? you should be interviewing a demo expert if you want to know that question.I CAN say that the head of a huge demo company has said that if they were going to bring down a building,they would rig explosives at the BOTTOM of the base to bring the towers down which fits in perfectly with the witness testimony of the coworkers and the video footage that explosives brought the towers down.

 

[manu1959]

ET FUEL TYPE A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [3]

OK JUST SHUT UP RIGHT NOW WITH YOUR MADE UP FACTS AND GO CLEAN YOUR LITTER BOX OR SOMETHING

with the fireproofing blown off the steal due to the impact...

with the perimeter, truss and core structural system damged.....

with the fire supression system compromised.....

with the jet fuel used as an accelerante to ignite the contents of the office building....

with stored energy of mutiple floors above this point.....

how hot would the fire need to get to weaken the remaining connection and support points and release the stored energy above....

stop listening to the fairy tales that NOVA tells you.They reinforced it after the 93 bombing with fireproofing to make sure that never happened.The Bush dupes here make themselves look like idiots when they say the firew weakened the steel because if you ever took any science classes,you would know that jet fuel only burns at 1800 degrees. to even begin to weaken steel fire temps have to reach temps of 2700 degrees.until the Bush dupes take some science classes and accept this fact,their just talking out of their ass.I know this cause i have a friend who worked on buildings for over 30 years an is a certified steel worker.

it seemed a simple question ..... was there enough combustible material on the damaged floors to have a fire burn at a temperature hot enough to weaken the steel .....

 

[manu1959]

No YOU have nothing to stand on by choosing to only selectively address PARTS of my posts.you only address PARTS of it because you know you cant counter what it says.

i only have one part to my post and you write an esay about nothing and avoid a very simply question.....

to get this building to "free fall" .....what would you have to do to the structural system....

blow it up...like in a controlled demolition

do controlled demolitions pancake or free fall.....

 

[manu1959]

No YOU have nothing to stand on by choosing to only selectively address PARTS of my posts.you only address PARTS of it because you know you cant counter what it says.

i only have one part to my post and you write an esay about nothing and avoid a very simply question.....

to get this building to "free fall" .....what would you have to do to the structural system....

why are you asking ME,I have never claimed to be a demolition expert? you should be interviewing a demo expert if you want to know that question.I CAN say that the head of a huge demo company has said that if they were going to bring down a building,they would rig explosives at the BOTTOM of the base to bring the towers down which fits in perfectly with the witness testimony of the coworkers and the video footage that explosives brought the towers down.

so you have no idea ..... but you have a friend that works in the steel industry .... got it...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Can anyone tell me in less than an entire page why Popular Mechanics is wrong?

Me, eots, and terral already answered that many times in our posts here but I'll repeat it in my next few posts,THEN its time to leave this thread since the answers are about to be given AGAIN.
Below in the next few posts of mine is WHY popular mechanics is wrong.

 

[manu1959]

Can anyone tell me in less than an entire page why Popular Mechanics is wrong?

Me, eots, and terral already answered that many times in our posts here but I'll repeat it in my next few posts,THEN its time to leave this thread since the answers are about to be given AGAIN.
Below in the next few posts of mine is WHY popular mechanics is wrong.

you can't be trusted.....you have no clue how to make a building free fall and your knowledge comes from some alledged friend that has been in the steel industry for 30 years.....probably some dude making plates upstate...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

in order to get a building to free fall at 32' / sec / sec .....what would you have to do to the structural system of the building.....in your own words....

But it wouldnt be free fall speed if it was at 32 seconds.the way we know it came down at freefall speed is all you got to do is time it when it starts collapsing and its timed at 11 seconds which equals free fall speed.in order for the 9/11 Bush dupes such as Divecon to accept the official version,you got to say that the rules of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years dating back to Aristrophes no longer apply anymore and that Sir Issac newton is an idiot.

As I talked with you about before,the evidence is overwhelming that explosives brought the towers down.all you got to do is look at the videos.there is one out there that the mainstream media has suppressed where it shows black billowing smoke rising from the street BEFORE the towers have collapse and you hear explosions going off as well.so the film footage backs up the witnesses testimonys that they heard and saw bright orange yellow explosions going off that came from the BASEMENT below seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above.The CIA screwed up
in their timing when setting off the charges obviously. Not only does the film footage prove explosions were going off before the towers fell but witnesses in the street saw the workers in the building carrying a man on fire who came from the elevator basement below on fire before the plane struck the tower above yelling out-oh my god,theres explosions going off in the basement.But the 9/11 Bush dupes like Divecon are so much in denial,they never watch our videos we show them that prove it all since the truth scares them.[/QUOTE]

THIS ^ is WHY we know POPULAR MECHANICS is wrong and a fairy tale.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

YouTube - Popular Mechanics Debunked

we know from THIS VIDEO that Popular Mechanics is wrong and a fairy tale.