Starting the circle fresh.

[CurveLight]

Face it truthers, Baruch Menachem, has not only owned you but has eaten your lunch.

He ate my lunch because he likes fresh steamy shit.

You eat shit for lunch?

Also, I think BM is a she.

I had lunch several hours and recently shit it out then read Olliegirl's post. See, when you eat food and after it digests your body will dispose of it by shitting it out of your ass. In your case, you probably can't tell the difference, hence your question. What else you got genius?

 

[CurveLight]

He ate my lunch because he likes fresh steamy shit.

You eat shit for lunch?

Also, I think BM is a she.

Shit sandwiches actually, but he uses whole wheat bread.

Isn't time for matlock, ben gay, your diaper change, and apologize to your wife for fucking up and marrying you?

 

[Fizz]

I had lunch several hours and recently shit it out then read Olliegirl's post. See, when you eat food and after it digests your body will dispose of it by shitting it out of your ass. In your case, you probably can't tell the difference, hence your question. What else you got genius?

last time i went to take a shit CurveLight popped out instead.

 

[CurveLight]

I had lunch several hours and recently shit it out then read Olliegirl's post. See, when you eat food and after it digests your body will dispose of it by shitting it out of your ass. In your case, you probably can't tell the difference, hence your question. What else you got genius?

last time i went to take a shit CurveLight popped out instead.

Your boyfriends ollie and divecon will get mighty jealous of you openly fantasizing about a guy up your ass unless it's one or both of them at the same time. Stings even worse you're fantasizing about a hetero Troofer.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Face it truthers, Baruch Menachem, has not only owned you but has eaten your lunch.

He ate my lunch because he likes fresh steamy shit.

You eat shit for lunch?

Also, I think BM is a she.

He.
I just like cute Japanese Avis. My previous one was Karin. This one is Sora from Sketchbook.
I don't think I want what they eat. I think it is mostly mushrooms (Peyote) and grass.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Not the first time I've been wrong.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Not the first time I've been wrong.

Happened a few times to me to. But lets not tell curvelight, Eots and Terrel about that. It will be our own little conspiracy.

 

[Gamolon]

9/11insidejob,

I still have not seen your proof of the claim that what Skilling says proves Leslie Robertson to be a liar.

I still have not seen your of your claim that NIST itself says the towers fell at free fall speeds.

Why is that?

 

[Liability]

The last 9/11 goof thread is now 25 pages and has sunk to yells of "Retard" back and forth.

* * * *

So let's get a JUMP on THIS thread.

To all 9/11 conspiracy "theorists."

Every blessed one of you is a certified RETARD!

 

[Gamolon]

1. Heat energy from any building fire is absorbed by the steel members (girders, columns, beams, bar-joists) for transmission to cooler areas of the larger steel-frame network!

That above statement is a lie and you know it. You're just making shit up now. If that were the case then explain why they fireproof steel structures?

Explain this discussion located here:
STRUCTUREmag: Fireproofing Steel Structures

If steel cannot be affected by office fires, then why are there studies about it? Are you the only one who knows steel cannot be affected by fire?



Must be a huge scam going on with all the talk of fireproofing, fireproofing companies, steel and studies that show affects that fire has on weakening steel.

Maybe you can shed some light on this and why thousands of people say you're wrong.

 

[Gamolon]

Hi Baruch:

As to heat dissipation... It does happen, but not that much dissipates through steel ...

We are talking about heat 'conduction' through the massive steel columns and beams, which means heat MOVES from hot areas to cool areas MUCH faster than any single component can weaken. Your assumption that heat can build up in any single column or beam is STUPID.

Anyone willing to fall for that STUPIDITY (#9) is worthy to become your idiot disciple ...

GL,

Terral

Then why do they fireproof steel? Why do they have scientific studies showing when steel starts to lose it's strength at certain temperatures?

Go find an engineer that agrees with you that fire/heat from an office fire does not affect steel in any way and therefore said steel does not need to be fireproofed. Let's see a link or study about that. I've seen what fire does to steel when I did damage assessment for an engineering firm and your full of shit. No amount of your so-called "demolition experience" going to make you correct.

 

[CurveLight]

9/11insidejob,

I still have not seen your proof of the claim that what Skilling says proves Leslie Robertson to be a liar.

I still have not seen your of your claim that NIST itself says the towers fell at free fall speeds.

Why is that?

How long did it take for the towers to fall?

 

[Fizz]

9/11insidejob,

I still have not seen your proof of the claim that what Skilling says proves Leslie Robertson to be a liar.

I still have not seen your of your claim that NIST itself says the towers fell at free fall speeds.

Why is that?

How long did it take for the towers to fall?

longer than free fall. clearly the falling debris outpaced the collapse.

 

[CurveLight]

9/11insidejob,

I still have not seen your proof of the claim that what Skilling says proves Leslie Robertson to be a liar.

I still have not seen your of your claim that NIST itself says the towers fell at free fall speeds.

Why is that?

How long did it take for the towers to fall?

longer than free fall. clearly the falling debris outpaced the collapse.

I see you are proving again you are unable to read and a complete jackass as always.

 

[Gamolon]

9/11insidejob,

I still have not seen your proof of the claim that what Skilling says proves Leslie Robertson to be a liar.

I still have not seen your of your claim that NIST itself says the towers fell at free fall speeds.

Why is that?

How long did it take for the towers to fall?

Are you asking me how long each tower took to totally collapse? Meaning the time it took from the moment of collapse initiation to the time the building was completely collapsed?

Or are you asking me how long it took certain pieces of the towers to fall from their respective heights to the ground.

You do realize there is a difference right?

 

[CurveLight]

9/11insidejob,

I still have not seen your proof of the claim that what Skilling says proves Leslie Robertson to be a liar.

I still have not seen your of your claim that NIST itself says the towers fell at free fall speeds.

Why is that?

How long did it take for the towers to fall?

Are you asking me how long each tower took to totally collapse? Meaning the time it took from the moment of collapse initiation to the time the building was completely collapsed?

Or are you asking me how long it took certain pieces of the towers to fall from their respective heights to the ground.

You do realize there is a difference right?

From the moment you can see the collapse until it's down....what is the standard used in timing a building's collapse when demo'd? If I remember correctly, the CR said the South T collapsed in ten seconds. I haven't studied the Towers much as my focus has been on 77.

 

[Gamolon]

How long did it take for the towers to fall?

Are you asking me how long each tower took to totally collapse? Meaning the time it took from the moment of collapse initiation to the time the building was completely collapsed?

Or are you asking me how long it took certain pieces of the towers to fall from their respective heights to the ground.

You do realize there is a difference right?

From the moment you can see the collapse until it's down....what is the standard used in timing a building's collapse when demo'd? If I remember correctly, the CR said the South T collapsed in ten seconds. I haven't studied the Towers much as my focus has been on 77.

10 seconds for total collapse is not correct. One reason that this time frame is incorrect is that part of the core stood for a few seconds AFTER the perimeter walls fell away from the tower proper. Here is an excerpt from NIST located here: NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Not even CLOSE to 10 seconds.

On the discussion of WTC7, Terral has a major problem with his so-called "proof" for WTC7's collapse time which he puts at 6.6 seconds. WTC7 did not take 6.6 seconds to completely collapse. What Terral does not want anyone to see or figure out, is that the mechanical penthouse of WTC7 is seen to start collapsing BEFORE the roof line starts to collapse. Here is the video proof of the penthouse starting to collapse:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_fFxBB4aY]YouTube - WTC7 Penthouse Collapse Timeline[/ame]

This video shows a full 9 seconds from the penthouse collapse initiation until the roof line starts to fall. That's 9 BEFORE the roof line. Terral wants you to believe that the total collapse took 6.6 seconds. No way. Even you say that the collapsed time is from the moment the collapse initiates (WTC7's mechanical penthouse) until it is completely down. Can you tell me why Terral ignores the penthouse collapse initiation in all his videos? Here is a another video that INCLUDES the penthouse starting to collapse.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ]YouTube - Collapse of WTC7[/ame]

At LEAST 13 seconds total. Almost double what Terral wants people to believe. He has been shown this and STILL uses 6.6 total collapse time.

Why?

 

[Gamolon]

Why does Terral continue to say that ALL MEMBERS were cut at the same time when the mechanical penthouse is seen to start to collapse 9 seconds before the roof line starts it's descent?

 

[Liability]

Why does Terral continue to say that ALL MEMBERS were cut at the same time when the mechanical penthouse is seen to start to collapse 9 seconds before the roof line starts it's descent?

Terral is hostile to the truth. When it's inconvenient to him, he either ignores it or makes baseless contrary claims.

It's his style.

 

[Terral]

Hi Gamolon:

That above statement is a lie and you know it. You're just making shit up now. If that were the case then explain why they fireproof steel structures?

No sir. Gamolon is the liar and you very well know it. Steel 'conducts' heat. Gamolon is asking questions, when he is supposed to be showing us how 800 degree building fires (Schwab.com from my WTC-7 CD Topic) cause the catastrophic collapse of 2800-degree (911Research.net) steel-frame skyscrapers! The building fire heats up a nearby WTC column or beam to say 800 degrees. That heat energy races to adjacent beams and columns and girders and bar-joists, until the entire steel-frame network temperature is raised only slightly.

Gamolon is pretending that our affected column is going to heat up to a whopping 2800 degrees from building fires (NOT) and the adjacent beams and columns will absorb NOTHING. What an idiot! All reports say the WTC-7 fires were MINIMAL anyway 'and' Gamolon has no heat source to 'cut' massive columns and beams throughout the entire WTC-7 steel-frame network! Gamolon has no precedent for modern-day skyscrapers collapsing CD-style from building fires! Period! And then this Official Cover Story Stooge has the nerve to say I (#3) am making things up!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]This Is WTC-7 Collapsing From A Deliberate Controlled Demolition![/ame]

Explain this discussion located here:
STRUCTUREmag: Fireproofing Steel Structures

BS. Gamolon can explain his Official Govt Cover Story Disinformation ...

If steel cannot be affected by office fires, then why are there studies about it? Are you the only one who knows steel cannot be affected by fire?

Okay hotshot: Show us your list of non-9/11 steel-framed skyscrapers that have collapsed CD-style into their own footprints from building fires! None exist! People have known that steel-framed skyscrapers are 'fireproof' for centuries!

History Of Skyscrapers

"The oldest iron framed building in the world is The Flaxmill (also locally known as the "Maltings"), in Shrewsbury, England. Built in 1797, it is seen as the "grandfather of skyscrapers” due to its fireproof combination of cast iron columns and cast iron beams developed into the modern steel frame that made modern skyscrapers possible."

The American Architect and Building News, Volumes 91-92

"In the San Francisco conflagration the ordinary buildings were wiped out of existence, and the tall ones were damaged from 10 percent to 80 percent of their cost, but those skyscrapers were very much inferior to the construction of those of New York or Chicago; some of the principal elements of real fire-protection were absolutely lacking; in many cases only the structural parts, the mere skeleton of the building, was fireproof."

Building fires simply do not burn hot enough to affect 2800-degree red-iron steel! Period! That is why no skyscraper has ever burned down in the history of this planet ...

Must be a huge scam going on with all the talk of fireproofing, fireproofing companies, steel and studies that show affects that fire has on weakening steel.

Gamolon is trying to carry water for the inside-job murderers of innocent Americans. There is no typical building fire that is going to 'weaken' any steel component of any 2800-degree steel-framed skyscraper, because the network itself is simply MUCH too massive 'and' can absorb and conduct that energy to cooler areas MUCH faster than any single component can weaken. Period. If you are too stupid to understand, then welcome to the party (#9).

GL,

Terral