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.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Read this whole page....
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
They use the turm "Pull" to describe actually pulling the building away from other buildings so that it doesn't fall a certian direction. This is also illustrated with actual pictures of the cables being used to pull building 6.
Also, it talks about Silverstein's comments to the fire commander about "pulling" building seven. Neither of the two men in the conversation are in the demolition business. The term "pull" in the firefighting community is to literally PULL men from the building. Read the entire page on the site above and notice the HOLES in the conspiracy movement. These modern conspiracist strategically leave out bits and pieces of video and evidence because it will prove them wrong.
yeah right.
also you still keep flinging shit because you cant debunk Barry Jennings testimony of bld 7 or this video. that lady at the end of that video hit the nail on the head,she is talking about you OCTA'S. You also always have to fling shit in defeat making up crap to try and save face in your posts when these links are shown to you.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Read this whole page....
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
They use the turm "Pull" to describe actually pulling the building away from other buildings so that it doesn't fall a certian direction. This is also illustrated with actual pictures of the cables being used to pull building 6.
Also, it talks about Silverstein's comments to the fire commander about "pulling" building seven. Neither of the two men in the conversation are in the demolition business. The term "pull" in the firefighting community is to literally PULL men from the building. Read the entire page on the site above and notice the HOLES in the conspiracy movement. These modern conspiracist strategically leave out bits and pieces of video and evidence because it will prove them wrong.
hate to break your heart but those firemen were long gone out of there of bld 7 by the time silverstein made that statement.funny how you also ignore that silverstein refers to the firemen-people as It.
you Bush/Obama dupes have to make shit up to try and save face in your posts everytime this video is shown that is when you DONT ignore it which is usually almost the case 99 out of a 100 times.
says the guy that can't refute this....
Yo challenged me to find 10 because you assumed it couldn't be done. Now you up the number to 1400...typical. I think you refuse to believe otherwise...simple as that.
no you might find ten...but you cant just post a statement from a large and somewhat generic groups and pretend all of its members sign off on it...it is nothing like individual engineers going on record with their individual opinion and the reasons for their conclusions
There's no reason for them to. That's the nature of what you are talking about. The only reason conspiracist are known is because they disagree with the NORM.
IF BY NORM YOU MEAN CONTROLLED MEDIA
.You're not going to see individual statements from each and every civil and structural engineer in the field because most of them agree as to why the towers fell. All of the sane engineers in the field aren't going to start their own individual websites explaining why the NIST report was accurate
YET THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF DENWUNKER VIDEOS AND SITES
The NIST report said what needed to be said. There's no sense explaining it two, three, or 10 million times over. I'm not claiming that they did a "bang-up" job on it or weren't 100% accurate, but obviously more engineers than not feel that it is possilbe that the towers and building 7 fell from the conditions present... OTHERWISE, you would have a national movement of the majority of engineers wanting truth..
THERE IS ...OTHERS WISH TO KEEP THERE JOBS
:.which is not the case. You have 1400 out of 10 million that are questioning it. And let's not also forget to mention that some of those 1400 are not even from the U.S. You're comparing apples to oranges in this respect. The only reason you can find 1400 9/11 "truth" sites is because every moron who wants to disagree feels he or she has to make a statement about it and stack boxes up and explain why it's not possible to have happened...:cuckoo
OR THE ONE INDIVIDUAL YOU FOUND TO SUPPORT THAT USED COKE CANS AND A BRICK ?
You have the burden of proof because you're trying to disagree with the majority of engineers. For some odd reason, you believe that because 1400 engineers from around the world have signed some petition, and that the other 10 million haven't signed a petition of support of the NIST, then that makes you right...
DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO YOUR TEN MILLION ENGINEERS CLAIM ?
The OCTA trolls like Brian can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are.
He knows he cant refute the evidence here so he can only fling shit in defeat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oYjsVdm7dE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Read this whole page....
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
They use the turm "Pull" to describe actually pulling the building away from other buildings so that it doesn't fall a certian direction. This is also illustrated with actual pictures of the cables being used to pull building 6.
Also, it talks about Silverstein's comments to the fire commander about "pulling" building seven. Neither of the two men in the conversation are in the demolition business. The term "pull" in the firefighting community is to literally PULL men from the building. Read the entire page on the site above and notice the HOLES in the conspiracy movement. These modern conspiracist strategically leave out bits and pieces of video and evidence because it will prove them wrong.
hate to break your heart but those firemen were long gone out of there of bld 7 by the time silverstein made that statement.funny how you also ignore that silverstein refers to the firemen-people as It.
you Bush/Obama dupes have to make shit up to try and save face in your posts everytime this video is shown that is when you DONT ignore it which is usually almost the case 99 out of a 100 times.
Active Thermitics Made Simple
Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction
no you might find ten...but you cant just post a statement from a large and somewhat generic groups and pretend all of its members sign off on it...it is nothing like individual engineers going on record with their individual opinion and the reasons for their conclusions
IF BY NORM YOU MEAN CONTROLLED MEDIA
The site I posted to you is not the media. It's a site made by engineers. So you lose on this one.
.
YET THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF DENWUNKER VIDEOS AND SITES
Thousands of site made and supported by the same idiotic tards over and over again...but I addressed the reason for lack of non-questioners.
THERE IS ...OTHERS WISH TO KEEP THERE JOBS
Yeah ok....
:
OR THE ONE INDIVIDUAL YOU FOUND TO SUPPORT THAT USED COKE CANS AND A BRICK ?
I said toothpicks and a brick...and I made that up because it would be more similar to the structure than a frickin cardboard box.
You have the burden of proof because you're trying to disagree with the majority of engineers. For some odd reason, you believe that because 1400 engineers from around the world have signed some petition, and that the other 10 million haven't signed a petition of support of the NIST, then that makes you right...
DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO YOUR TEN MILLION ENGINEERS CLAIM ?
I already posted it on this thread but I'll find it again for you.
back for your usual ass beatings to be the monkey you are and fling shit in defeat I see Gomer.
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition - Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition
Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e
[Dr. Firmage uses unfortunate language in his letter.
"To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."
I give that quote about one month before it's taken out of context...]
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
BYU Civil and Environmental Engineering
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department BYU - Page Not Found
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
Redirection
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
Page Not Found
"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
PopularMechanics.com Science - RSS Feed
The conspiracy sites are quick to point out these civil engineers haven't taken their valuable time away from their students, families and jobs to critique Professor Jones' 42 page unpublished report line by line. The inference drawn from this is they are just dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it. Or if they are looking at it, they're stumped by the incredibly flawless nature of this 42 page report. It's easier to just say it's wrong than have to address this masterpiece of forensic science. But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.
You see? Even Jones' own collegeus think he is wrong and that his HYPOTHESIS is inconsistent with the evidence...
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition - Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition
Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e
[Dr. Firmage uses unfortunate language in his letter.
"To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."
I give that quote about one month before it's taken out of context...]
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
BYU Civil and Environmental Engineering
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department BYU - Page Not Found
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
Redirection
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
Page Not Found
"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
PopularMechanics.com Science - RSS Feed
The conspiracy sites are quick to point out these civil engineers haven't taken their valuable time away from their students, families and jobs to critique Professor Jones' 42 page unpublished report line by line. The inference drawn from this is they are just dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it. Or if they are looking at it, they're stumped by the incredibly flawless nature of this 42 page report. It's easier to just say it's wrong than have to address this masterpiece of forensic science. But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.
You see? Even Jones' own collegeus think he is wrong and that his HYPOTHESIS is inconsistent with the evidence...
btw none of none the links work and anything connected to the popular mechanics is highly suspect and the editorial blurb at the end is anything but science
David L. Griscom, PhD Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]
... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman
Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."
Bio: David L Griscom PhD Physicist bio
Dwain Deets, MS Eng
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth.org
Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,400 Architects and Engineers:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Read this whole page....
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
They use the turm "Pull" to describe actually pulling the building away from other buildings so that it doesn't fall a certian direction. This is also illustrated with actual pictures of the cables being used to pull building 6.
Also, it talks about Silverstein's comments to the fire commander about "pulling" building seven. Neither of the two men in the conversation are in the demolition business. The term "pull" in the firefighting community is to literally PULL men from the building. Read the entire page on the site above and notice the HOLES in the conspiracy movement. These modern conspiracist strategically leave out bits and pieces of video and evidence because it will prove them wrong.
hate to break your heart but those firemen were long gone out of there of bld 7 by the time silverstein made that statement.funny how you also ignore that silverstein refers to the firemen-people as It.
you Bush/Obama dupes have to make shit up to try and save face in your posts everytime this video is shown that is when you DONT ignore it which is usually almost the case 99 out of a 100 times.
Active Thermitics Made Simple
Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction
The only dipshit here is you numbnuts. The fire chief already acknowledges that Silverstein and he talked about pulling firefighters from the building and surrounding area because of fearing it would collapse. Silverstein ALSO has acknowledged that he WASN'T speaking in demolition terms when he said to pull the building. I think the bad part is that you know you're an idiot.
"rolls on floor laughing." as usual,you trolls can only fling shit in defeat like the monkeys you are. Like clockwork,the troll knows he is defeated,so he can only fling shit in defeat as always.hate to break your heart but those firemen were long gone out of there of bld 7 by the time silverstein made that statement.funny how you also ignore that silverstein refers to the firemen-people as It.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
you Bush/Obama dupes have to make shit up to try and save face in your posts everytime this video is shown that is when you DONT ignore it which is usually almost the case 99 out of a 100 times.
Active Thermitics Made Simple
Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction
The only dipshit here is you numbnuts. The fire chief already acknowledges that Silverstein and he talked about pulling firefighters from the building and surrounding area because of fearing it would collapse. Silverstein ALSO has acknowledged that he WASN'T speaking in demolition terms when he said to pull the building. I think the bad part is that you know you're an idiot.
great rebuttals there.
The OCTA trolls like Brian can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are.
He knows he cant refute the evidence here so he can only fling shit in defeat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oYjsVdm7dE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
Have you read my past 10 posts? If so you would be eating your own shit.... There's nothing false about what I have posted....just because doofers like you tend to post videos that edit out parts of building collapses that discredit their claim doesn't mean you have to spread you lies around to everyone. Once again...why don't the other 9.9 million engineers and architects come forward and sign your stupid petition? Oh yeah, because they're not tards like you.
you cant debunk those two videos so you just keep flinging shit in defeat in your desperate and pathetic attempts. i already answered that for you wayyyyyyy back there,but like the troll you ignore it like you will again,that they wont come forward and sign the petition because they are afraid they will lose their jobs and lose future contract work dumbfuck.there have been many people in their professions that have lost their jobs after coming forward and saying the 9/11 commission is bullshit. they dont want to have the same fate happen to them.keep flinging shit in defeat and run away from those videos you can debunk like the scardy cat monkey you are.
