Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Gamolon]

you deceivingly refereed to them as codes and removed the title from your cut and paste and provided no link

As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given. A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point. Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you? Oh wait. If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes. The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.

BTW, how does one "referee" to codes? And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code. Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!

What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!

a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself

Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?

Hypocrite.

 

[eots]

As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given. A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point. Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you? Oh wait. If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes. The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.

BTW, how does one "referee" to codes? And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code. Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!

What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!

a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself

This coming from an asshole who rarely, if ever, backs up his claims with links. You're so full of shit, eots.

I never post others material without a link

 

[Patriot911]

a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself

This coming from an asshole who rarely, if ever, backs up his claims with links. You're so full of shit, eots.

I never post others material without a link

Do you repost it in EVERY post where you discuss it? No? I didn't think so. You're so full of shit, eots. How do people stand you in real life?

 

[eots]

This coming from an asshole who rarely, if ever, backs up his claims with links. You're so full of shit, eots.

I never post others material without a link

Do you repost it in EVERY post where you discuss it? No? I didn't think so. You're so full of shit, eots. How do people stand you in real life?

yes, I post a link to all copywrite material every-time I post it and leave the title intact as does most everyone else ...what is that too difficult for you ?

 

[eots]

As has been clearly stated several times now, the links I used had already been given. A shame you're too retarded to read, yet actually pretend like you have a point. Does everyone have to spell everything out to the nth degree for you? Oh wait. If everyone did that you would have nothing to bitch about since you obviously can't back up your bullshit, nor can you ever admit your mistakes. The only point you have is on top of that pointy head of yours.

BTW, how does one "referee" to codes? And now I've removed the title altogether, whereas before you said I took out the words fire code. Got caught in yet another lie, didn't you eots!

What a fucking piece of shit liar eots is!

a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself

Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?

Hypocrite.

feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder

 

[Patriot911]

a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself

Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?

Hypocrite.

feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder

eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue. BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.

 

[Mr. Jones]

a link is to be posted with all material from other sources..it is a rule of copy write and a rule of the board, I know its a lot to expect from persons such as yourself, but it is whats required...so your claims of doing it before are pointless...much like yourself

Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?

Hypocrite.

feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder

They will cry and complain about anything to try and sidetrack debate and the truth don't they?
Anyway I noticed you had to really twist Parrots arm to provide a link, and I think I know why he was so hesitant, I read his link and found the following-Seems this study does not quite agree with NIST from what I can tell.
from another thread-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3526345-post150.html

Quote: Originally Posted by Patriot911Give a truthtard enough rope and he will hang himself from the highest tree! Since you are too lazy, too fucking stupid, or both to find the paper, here is your link you will probably not read.
http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf

As for you posting the link, .!.. ..!. Dream on, dumbfuck!

This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to
the NIST work where the amount
of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a
significant factor in defining the time to collapse.
However there is no evidence in NIST’s preliminary report that
this is backed up by structural modelling in response to fire. It
appears that only heat transfer modelling considering different
levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of
the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and
stiffness only.
Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this
effect has not been described as yet.

Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire
as an actual load on the structural frame.

This graph is an example of the data output from our thermomechancial
analysis and shows the support available to the
columns from truss floors at different steel truss temperatures.
It forms one part of the basis of our understanding of restraint
to columns in fire.
It demonstrates that even at very high temperatures the truss
floors can provide restraint.
(This coincides with the testing and results conducted on the floor assemblies conducted by NIST-THEY DID NOT FAIL! SEE LINK #2 BELOW)
This could explain the time gap between the column inward
bowing shown in the NIST presentation on 5 April at approx
18mins and the structural survival in that state to collapse
several minutes later.

As part of these studies, we have analysed WTC type
structural designs in various severe fire scenarios. In addition
we have been investigating the behaviour of long span cellular
beams in fire – the most popular form of construction in
London at this time.
( So the WTC design type of design was in no way unusual enough to say that is why they collapsed like they did!)
The tall building studies presented here must not be viewed as
a forensic investigation of the WTC buildings. Nor is that what
we want to achieve – for we must be able to translate any new
understanding to all different forms of construction.

Our aim is to be in a position where we can understand if
there are any specific progressive collapse mechanisms in
tall structures that are not known or not understood in the
fire limit state.
( Good luck, freefall collapses of steel buildings are only understood in the NIST Bush science world)
The WTC towers behaved very well following impact and
in response to multiple floor fires indicating that it was a
robust system.
The draft NIST report appears to rely on dislodged fire
protection.
(has anyone actually looked at the extent of the NIST testing to prove this asinine theory? They used one shot from a shotgun-see link #1 below)
Collapse mechanism proposed
by NIST in April 5 Presentation Report
The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is also column behaviour
in fire.
However, we believe that a considerable difference in
downward displacement between the core and perimeter
columns, much greater than the 300mm proposed, is required
for the collapse theory to hold true.

Why upward expansion of the column would act against
the mechanical shortening.
Crude initial calculations indicate that the elastic downward
deflection at half the modulus (say at approx. 500C) will be
roughly 38mm.
Assuming plastic strains, a maximum yielding of approximately
190mm is possible.
If the downward displacement is 300mm as assumed, the
rotation at the perimeter connection would be 300mm vertical
over an 18000mm span - extremely small.
The floor elongation must be less than 2.5mm to generate
tensile pulling forces on the exterior columns as a result of the
column shortening in the core.
Thermal expansion of the floor truss would be 65mm at 300°C
over a length of 18000mm.
Therefore the 2.5mm is swamped by thermal expansion and
the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the
floor simply as a result of column shortening.
(This whole "thermal expansion theory" is insane, it is sooo minimal that it is not even taken into consideration, past or present, this is just another "miracle" NIST wants stupid people to believe happened only on that day, in that city etc)

The NIST collapse theory also states that “floors weakened and
sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused
the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process
that spread across the faces of the buildings. (BS) Collapse
then ensued”.This is similar to some of our collapse proposals but no
mention of thermal expansion is made, the floor buckling and
lack of support to the columns seems to be entirely due to
loss in strength and stiffness in their view which we would
consider to be only part of the story.
(Steel fails and causes free fall collapses only in Manhattan apparently-Also NIST overestimated the actual sagging of these floors-SEE LINK#3 BELOW)
Influence of the hat truss on the
buildings performance
We have analyzed models with and without a hat truss at
the top of a tall-building and found that - a hat truss
significantly improves stability in multiple floor fires.
In the image above, the Hat Truss shows clear redistribution
from outer columns to the core (primarily the outer core
columns). NIST have also observed load transfer via the hat
truss. Such issues could become the basis for future fire related
structural design guidance.

Our aim now and the reason for our continuing research and
development in this field is to introduce quantified secondary
structural systems to help the structure cope with the loads
induced in fire. (sure...it's allll about the $$$)
On a final note structural fire engineering continues to
be important.
We have noticed an interesting step change in the approvals
process with specific requests now, even for fully code
compliant buildings in terms of structural fire proofing, for global
structural responses be quantified and justified, in order to
obtain structural design approval..
Events will happen and we have to address concerns but we
need to make sure that our response is measured and
beneficial in many ways.
Our goal is to deliver the design vision for our architects and
clients and all the key stakeholders in a project, safely.
Therefore we are recommending threat and risk assessments
to determine design solutions, innovative evacuation strategies
that address real human response and imminent catastrophic
events, and whole frame structural analysis to be employed,
as required, on tall buildings in the future.
(Again more needless regulations produce more $$$$ needlessly spent on "analysis" and construction to conform)

(seems they want to be in on the ground floor to take advantage of potential income, should new construction and safety codes come into play because of NISTS lunacy.)

They also say-
Sometimes
however we may disagree with NIST and we therefore currently
plan to comment on the draft final report due in June as
part of the public consultation process before the final issue..
in September.
If anyone has these final comments I would like to read them.

link 1-The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.
* NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
o Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
o Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
o For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.

NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1

* Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
* Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
* For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area

* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan

LINK 2
Laboratory tests conducted by NIST included:

* Tests to prove loss of fireproofing
* Workstation burn tests
* Tests by UL to test failure in floor assemblies

The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse. The tests showed:
* Minimal floor sagging
* No floor collapse
* "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

LINK 3
Some floors began to sag?
Step five in NIST's collapse theory is that floors began to sag. The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire.
What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.

Just more proof that NIST stretched their data and lied to us all, they like the apologists on this forum hope you will just not read any of their BS.

"I describe NIST's Report as a mountain of distracting detail.

NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

Ryan more succinctly describes their theory as a 'tin rat' -- They'll Never Read All This -- theory. The Report on the Twin Towers is 42 sub-reports totaling more than 10,000 pages."

And here is your fucking links you crying ass bitches-

Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan

 

[eots]

Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?

Hypocrite.

feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder

They will cry and complain about anything to try and sidetrack debate and the truth don't they?
Anyway I noticed you had to really twist Parrots arm to provide a link, and I think I know why he was so hesitant, I read his link and found the following-Seems this study does not quite agree with NIST from what I can tell.
from another thread-

yes,indeed and his the removal of the title was a nice touch..btw...nice work Mr Jones,well done

 

[eots]

Why haven't you called out Mr. Jones on these "rule" infractions?

Hypocrite.

feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder

eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue. BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.

no, parrot tried to device by not providing a link and removing the title and got busted...and then Jones handed him his ass

 

[Patriot911]

feel free to point out to anyone if you notice a copywrite infraction I am sure as good citizens of the board they will appreciate the reminder

eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue. BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.

no, parrot tried to device by not providing a link and removing the title and got busted...and then Jones handed him his ass

Let's look at the big picture.

The lying piece of shit known as eots tried to pretend no code changes happened due to the NIST report.

Gamolon proved eots was a fucking liar by posting the code changes.

eots, being the scum sucking liar that he is, lies about there being any code changes.

In response, I point out all the code changes eots pretends don't exist.

eots then tries another lie by claiming they are just recommendations.

I point out which code changes are made and which are recommended.

eots then whines that I didn't link the article.

I post a link.

eots then whines that I removed fire codes from the title.

I point out I never even posted the title in the original, and the response was an unaltered title.

eots then starts crying like a little bitch that I didn't post the link right away and that I still didn't post the title in my original post as if that somehow changes the fact eots got his ass kicked yet again AND made himself look like a fool AND proved once again just how often he lies.

Well done, eots. Well done!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Good work, Jones. You clearly have your thinking cap on. Why haven't you put Patriot on ignore already is beyond me. He's a shit flinging hick, remedial. Yes, remedial. It is my polite and PC way of saying retarded as I don't like that word.. Arguing with him is like chasing your tail.

Do yourself a favor.

You know the truth. The problem is cognitive aware, not recognition. people don't fucking care. They like it apparently. "Willfully ignorant."

Peace.

 

[Patriot911]

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

I sincerely doubt Thomas Jefferson was talking about a bunch of retarded liars trying to overthrow the government when he said that. He would spit on the lot of you.

 

[Patriot911]

Good work, Jones. You clearly have your thinking cap on. Why haven't you put Patriot on ignore already is beyond me. He's a shit flinging hick, remedial. Yes, remedial. It is my polite and PC way of saying retarded as I don't like that word.. Arguing with him is like chasing your tail.

Do yourself a favor.

You know the truth. The problem is cognitive aware, not recognition. people don't fucking care. They like it apparently. "Willfully ignorant."

Peace.

That's rich! The retard is trying to insult me by misusing a word! Aww. Is he still pretending not to read what I write?

 

[eots]

eots got his ass handed to him and got exposed as a fucking liar and now he is trying to cover it all up by trying to pretend it is a copyright issue. BTW, fucktard, it is copyright, not copywrite.

no, parrot tried to device by not providing a link and removing the title and got busted...and then Jones handed him his ass

Let's look at the big picture.

The lying piece of shit known as eots tried to pretend no code changes happened due to the NIST report.

Gamolon proved eots was a fucking liar by posting the code changes.

eots, being the scum sucking liar that he is, lies about there being any code changes.

In response, I point out all the code changes eots pretends don't exist.

eots then tries another lie by claiming they are just recommendations.

I point out which code changes are made and which are recommended.

eots then whines that I didn't link the article.

I post a link.

eots then whines that I removed fire codes from the title.

I point out I never even posted the title in the original, and the response was an unaltered title.

eots then starts crying like a little bitch that I didn't post the link right away and that I still didn't post the title in my original post as if that somehow changes the fact eots got his ass kicked yet again AND made himself look like a fool AND proved once again just how often he lies.

Well done, eots. Well done!

actually it was stated the design was the reason the building 7 collapsed from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of fire code changes pretending they were building code changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie

 

[Patriot911]

actually it was stated the design was the reason the building 7 collapsed from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of fire code changes pretending they were building code changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie

Would you look at that! eots lying his slimey ass off yet again! Who would have thunk it?

First off, the codes listed were both FIRE AND BUILDING codes. Funny how you lie your ass off trying to pretend I omitted fire codes from the title, yet here you are pretending there were no building codes! So now you're not only a liar, but a massive hypocrite as well! I love it!

Second, the design of WTC 7 contributed to the collapse, but it was not at fault. If it had collapsed before the codes stated it should have remained standing (usually 4 hours), then the design could be called faulty if the circumstances were "normal". The circumstances surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 were ANYTHING but normal. Fires started on several floors at once. No fire fighting. Structural damage from the collapse of other buildings. Those are NOT normal and should be taken into account.

All honest people understand this stuff. Dishonest fucks like you pretend it doesn't exist. You've stepped on your own dick so many times in the last few days lying your ass off about all this that I would be surprised if anyone not a diehard truthtard who is used to liars of epic scale would ever believe you on anything.

 

[eots]

actually it was stated the design was the reason the building 7 collapsed from when no others ever have ,I asked where the building design was was ever called into question and to show any building codes changes that reflect this...he could not do so, so he listed a bunch of fire code changes pretending they were building code changes or relevant to design flaws that contributed to the collapse,they even cut the title off paper and left off the link to try and hide the lie

Would you look at that! eots lying his slimey ass off yet again! Who would have thunk it?

First off, the codes listed were both FIRE AND BUILDING codes. Funny how you lie your ass off trying to pretend I omitted fire codes from the title, yet here you are pretending there were no building codes! So now you're not only a liar, but a massive hypocrite as well! I love it!

where did I say no building codes ..I POINTED OUT THE FACT YOU POSTED THE ENTIRE PIECE BUT REMOVED THE TITLE TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THERE IS A LONG LIST OF BUILDING CODE CHANGES WHEN IN FACT THEY WHERE MAINLY IRRELEVANT FIRE CODE CHANGES

Second, the design of WTC 7 contributed to the collapse, but it was not at fault. If it had collapsed before the codes stated it should have remained standing (usually 4 hours),

GOT A LINK TO ANY OF THESE MADE UP FACTS...NO OF COURSE YOU DONT
BECAUSE YOU JUST MADE THEM UP

then the design could be called faulty if the circumstances were "normal". The circumstances surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 were ANYTHING but normal. Fires started on several floors at once. No fire fighting. Structural damage from the collapse of other buildings. Those are NOT normal and should be taken into account.

NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE

 

[Patriot911]

where did I say no building codes ..

Really? Are you seriously that ignorant?

so he listed a bunch of fire code changes pretending they were building code changes

According to you he listed only fire codes and no building codes. Caught in a lie yet again.

I POINTED OUT THE FACT YOU POSTED THE ENTIRE PIECE BUT REMOVED THE TITLE TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THERE IS A LONG LIST OF BUILDING CODE CHANGES WHEN IN FACT THEY WHERE MAINLY IRRELEVANT FIRE CODE CHANGES

Another easily proven lie from eots.

what you claimed was "you cut the title off fire code changes and pretend they are building code changes". Now, I didn't post the title at all, yet you try and pretend I just cut fire code changes from the title. Then you lie and say I pretend they are building code changes. I did no such thing. I simply said codes when referring to the codes.

Try to embrace the truth for once you lying piece of shit!

GOT A LINK TO ANY OF THESE MADE UP FACTS...NO OF COURSE YOU DONT
BECAUSE YOU JUST MADE THEM UP

One example

then the design could be called faulty if the circumstances were "normal". The circumstances surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 were ANYTHING but normal. Fires started on several floors at once. No fire fighting. Structural damage from the collapse of other buildings. Those are NOT normal and should be taken into account.

NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE

Wrong yet again, fucktard! I didn't say ANYTHING about the cause of collapse. I was clearly pointing out the circumstances surrounding the collapse were not normal. Why do you insist on constantly lying your ass off about every little thing?

 

[eots]

NIST SAYS THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR ...SO AGAIN YOU TRY TO DECEIVE[/QUOTE]

Wrong yet again, fucktard! I didn't say ANYTHING about the cause of collapse. I was clearly pointing out the circumstances surrounding the collapse were not normal. Why do you insist on constantly lying your ass off about every little thing?

I see,so it was just another irrelevant pointless statement...got ya

 

[eots]

still waiting for that link to your made up facts...