9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[Mr. Jones]

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid ****..........

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

Still trying to to deflect and sidetrack I see...How does asking a question about something unrelated, answer what has been asked?

 

[candycorn]

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

Still trying to to deflect and sidetrack I see...How does asking a question about something unrelated, answer what has been asked?

Deflect what?

The title of the thread is this:

9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: ....

Lightpoles were knocked down by something...obviously if the "conspiracy" was solved, it would have accoutned for this physical evidence. So what knocked it down if it wasn't AA77?

 

[Mr. Jones]

no you showed a clip where you saw the core come apart you have no proof it disintegrated ..
if that was the case what's all that steel doing at fresh kills, the hangar a Kennedy airport and the missile cruiser?

I have no proof? The video ITSELF is proof. What the **** does it take to be considered proof to you guys when your own eyes are disputed?

Now run along and find me JUST ONE video of the North Tower collapse that shows the core columns NOT disintegrating.

the clip is proof of collapse not disintegration

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

Here is an article that has been posted at various sites on the internet.

All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).

The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this, one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).

NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads -- their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?
The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective.

read the whole article....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU]Debunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using common sense - YouTube[/ame]

You keep on posting things that have already been proven false. The tops of the buildings were thinner, and could not have overcome the lower sections thicker, more robust, undamaged parts, within the short amount of time that is ESTIMATED.. period.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&lr=1]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

Repeating your outrageous tCT and using Nova, or NIST with nothing to support them IS STUPID.


The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick. Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel. The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.

BTW Daws, still think the Bazant theory is a "steaming pile" like you alluded to before?
******* idiot....

 

[Mr. Jones]

What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

Still trying to to deflect and sidetrack I see...How does asking a question about something unrelated, answer what has been asked?

Deflect what?

The title of the thread is this:

9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: ....

Lightpoles were knocked down by something...obviously if the "conspiracy" was solved, it would have accoutned for this physical evidence. So what knocked it down if it wasn't AA77?

The discussion at hand was regarding the WTC buildings, and like always you have nothing to say that reflects well regarding your insane OCT regarding the WTC buildings...so in desperation, you try to change things up by mentioning something unrelated like the light poles...hundreds of ******* miles away...

...what happened at the Pentagon, light poles or not, plane or not, still does not answer or begin to explain the obvious and glaring problems NIST has with their narrative..

 

[Mr. Jones]

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

You're ******* nuts. Just thought you should know that.

I'm sure he knows he's not normal but he seems happy with it and there's little point dwelling on the obvious.

WTF are you still doing in a discussion about 9-11? You've been relegated to cheerleader I see...commenting on things you admit you know nothing about...

 

[Mr. Jones]

no but your still wrong Barium - Ba




Chemical properties of barium - Health effects of barium - Environmental effects of barium



Atomic number

56


Atomic mass

137.33 g.mol -1


Electronegativity according to Pauling

0.9


Density

3.5 g.cm-3 at 20°C


Melting point

725 °C


Boiling point

1640 °C


Vanderwaals radius

0.222 nm


Ionic radius

0.135


Isotopes

16


Electronic shell

[ Xe ] 6s2


Energy of first ionisation

502.7 kJ.mol -1


Energy of second ionisation

965 kJ.mol -1


Standard potential

- 2.90 V


Discovered by

Sir Humphrey Davy in 1808


Barium - Ba



Barium

Barium is a silvery-white metal that can be found in the environment, where it exists naturally. It occurs combined with other chemicals, such as sulfur, carbon or oxygen. Ii is very light and its density is half that of iron. Barium oxidizes in air, reacts vigoroulsy with water to form the hydroxide, liberating hydrogen. Barium reacts with almost all the non-metals, forming often poisouning compounds.

Applications

Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug electrodes an in vacuum tubes as drying and oxygen-removing agent. It is also used in fluorescent lamps: impure barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to the light.
Barium compounds are used by the oil and gas industries to make drilling mud. Drilling mud simplifies drilling through rocks by lubricating the drill.
Barium compounds are also used to make paint, bricks, tiles, glass, and rubber. Barium nitrate and clorate give fireworks a green colour.

Barium in the environment

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth's crust, being the 14th most abundant element. High amounts of barium may only be found in soils and in food, such as nuts, seaweed, fish and certain plants.
Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations.

Barium enters the air during mining processes, refining processes, and during the production of barium compounds. It can also enter the air during coal and oil combustion.

The chief mined ores are barite, which is also the most common and witserite. The main mining areas are UK, Italy, Czech Republic, USA and Germany. Each year about 6 million tonnes are produced and reserves are expected to exceed 400 million tonnes.

Health effects of barium


The amount of barium that is detected in food and water usually is not high enough to become a health concern.
People with the greatest risk to barium exposure with additional health effects are those that work in the barium industry. Most of the health risks that they can undergo are caused by breathing in air that contains barium sulphate or barium carbonate.

Many hazardous waste sites contain certain amounts of barium. People that live near them may be exposed to harmful levels. The exposure will than be caused by breathing dust, eating soil or plants, or drinking water that is polluted with barium. Skin contact may also occur.

The health effects of barium depend upon the water-solubility of the compounds. Barium compounds that dissolve in water can be harmful to human health. The uptake of very large amounts of barium that are water-soluble may cause paralyses and in some cases even death.

Small amounts of water-soluble barium may cause a person to experience breathing difficulties, increased blood pressures, heart rhythm changes, stomach irritation, muscle weakness, changes in nerve reflexes, swelling of brains and liver, kidney and heart damage.

Barium has not shown to cause cancer with humans. There is no proof that barium can cause infertility or birth defects.


Environmental effects of barium


Some barium compounds that are released during industrial processes dissolve easily in water and are found in lakes, rivers, and streams. Because of their water-solubility these barium compounds can spread over great distances. When fish and other aquatic organisms absorb the barium compounds, barium will accumulate in their bodies.
Because it forms insoluble salts with other common components of the environment, such as carbonate and sulphate, barium is not mobile and poses little risk. Barium compounds that are persistent usually remain in soil surfaces, or in the sediment of water soils. Barium is found in most land soils at low levels. These levels may be higher at hazardous waste sites.




Read more: Barium (Ba) - Chemical properties - Health and Environmental effects


Strontium - Sr




Chemical properties of strontium - Health effects of strontium - Environmental effects of strontium



Atomic number

38


Atomic mass

87.62 g.mol -1


Electronegativity according to Pauling

1.0


Density

2.6 g.cm-3 at 20°C


Melting point

769 °C


Boiling point

1384 °C


Vanderwaals radius

0.215 nm


Ionic radius

0.113 nm (+2)


Isotopes

14


Electronic shell

[ Kr ] 5s2


Energy of first ionisation

549.2 kJ.mol -1


Energy of second ionisation

1064 kJ.mol -1


Discovered by

A. Crawford in 1790

Strontium - Sr


Strontium

Strontium is a soft, silver-yellow, alkaline-earth metal. It has three allotropic crystalline forms and in its physical and chemical properties it is similar to calcium and barium. Strontium reacts vigorously with water and quickly tarnishes in air, so it must be stored out of contact with air and water. Due to its extreme reactivity to air, this element always naturally occurs combined with other elements and compounds. Finely powdered strontium metal will ignite spontaneously in air to produce both strontium oxide and strontium nitride.

Applications

Strontium has uses similar to those of calcium and barium, but it is rarely employed because of its higher cost. Principal uses of strontium compounds are in pyrotechnics, for the brilliant reds in fireworks and warning flares and in greases. A little is used as a getter in vacuum tubes to remove the last traces of air. Most strontium is used as the carbonate in special glass for television screens and visual display units. Although strontium-90 is a dangerously radioactive isotope, it is a useful by-product of nuclear reactors from whose spent fuel is extracted. Its high-energy radiation can be used to generate an electric current, and for this reason it can be used in space vehicles, remote weather stations and navigation buoys.

Strontium in the environment

Strontium is commonly occurs in nature, formung about 0.034% of all igneous rock and in the form of the sulfate mineral celestite (SrSO4) and the carbonate strontianite (SrCO3). Celestite occurs frequently in sedimentary deposits of sufficient size, thus the development of mining facilities attractive. The main mining areas are UK, Mexico, Turkey and Spain. World production of strontium ores is about 140.000 tonnes per year from an unassessed total of reserves.

Foods containing strontium range from very low e.g. in corn (0.4 ppm and oranged (0.5 ppm) to high, e.g. in cabbage (45 ppm), onions (50 ppm) and lattuce (74 ppm).

Health effects of strontium


Strontium compounds that are water-insoluble can become water-soluble, as a result of chemical reactions. The water-soluble compounds are a greater threat to human health than the water-insoluble ones. Therefore, water-soluble forms of strontium have the opportunity to pollute drinking water. Fortunately the concentrations in drinking water are usually quite low.

People can be exposed to small levels of (radioactive) strontium by breathing air or dust, eating food, drinking water, or by contact with soil that contains strontium. We are most likely to come in contact with strontium by eating or drinking.
Strontium concentrations in food contribute to the strontium concentrations in the human body. Foodstuffs that contain significantly high concentrations of strontium are grains, leafy vegetables and dairy products.

For most people, strontium uptake will be moderate. The only strontium compound that is considered a danger to human health, even in small quantities, is strontium chromate. The toxic chromium that it contains mainly causes this. Strontium chromate is known to cause lung cancer, but the risks of exposure have been greatly reduced by safety procedures in companies, so that it is no longer an important health risk.

The uptake of high strontium concentrations is generally not known to be a great danger to human health. In one case someone experienced an allergic reaction to strontium, but there have been no similar cases since. For children exceeded strontium uptake may be a health risk, because it can cause problems with bone growth.
Strontium salts are not known to cause skin rashes or other skin problems of any kind.
When strontium uptake is extremely high, it can cause disruption of bone development. But this effect can only occur when strontium uptake is in the thousands of ppm range. Strontium levels in food and drinking water are not high enough to be able to cause these effects.

Radioactive strontium is much more of a health risk than stable strontium. When the uptake is very high, it may cause anaemia and oxygen shortages, and at extremely high concentrations it is even known to cause cancer as a result of damage to the genetic materials in cells.


Effects of strontium on the Environment


Strontium in its elemental form occurs naturally in many compartments of the environment, including rocks, soil, water, and air. Strontium compounds can move through the environment fairly easily, because many of the compounds are water-soluble.
Strontium is always present in air as dust, up to a certain level. Strontium concentrations in air are increased by human activities, such as coal and oil combustion. Dust particles that contain strontium will settle to surface water, soils or plant surfaces at some point. When the particles do not settle they will fall back onto earth when rain or snow falls. All strontium will eventually end up in soils or bottoms of surface waters, where they mix with strontium that is already present.
Strontium can end up in water through soils and through weathering of rocks. Only a small part of the strontium in water comes from dust particles from the air. Most of the strontium in water is dissolved, but some of it is suspended, causing muddy water at some locations. Not much strontium ends up in drinking water.
When strontium concentrations in water exceed regular concentrations, this is usually caused by human activities, mainly by dumping waste directly in the water. Exceeded strontium concentrations can also be caused by settling of dust particles from air that have reacted with strontium particles from industrial processes.
Strontium concentrations in soil may also be increased by human activities, such as the disposal of coal ash and incinerator ash, and industrial wastes. Strontium in soil dissolves in water, so that it is likely to move deeper into the ground and enter the groundwater. A part of the strontium that is introduced by humans will not move into groundwater and can stay within the soil for decades.
Because of the nature of strontium, some of it can end up in fish, vegetables, livestock and other animals.
One of the isotopes of strontium is radioactive. This isotope is not likely to occur naturally in the environment. It ends up in the environment, though, as a result of human activities, such as nuclear bomb testing and radioactive storage leaking. The only way to decrease concentrations of this isotope is through radioactive decay to stable zirconium.
The concentrations of radioactive strontium in the environment are relatively low and the particles will always end up in soils or water-bottoms eventually, where they mix with other strontium particles. It is not likely to end up in drinking water.

Certain deep-sea creatures incorporate strontium into their shells as strontium sulphate, and stony corals require it, which is why it needs to be added in the water in aquaria.





Read more: Strontium (Sr) - Chemical properties, Health and Environmental effects


nowhere in the usgs report does it state that those levels you quoted are toxic or linked to cancers at the wtc site.
it maybe odd but that's no evidence of anything but oddness.

The USGS measured levels, EPA decides if the level is toxic.

According to what I read at the epa.gov site, over 3,000 ppm of EITHER is a threat to health.

Levels above that were found in the dust downwind of the WTC.

thanks if you want to make a point about toxicity the why did you not quote the EPA.?
You also left out exposer time ...

You left out the other elements that the USGS found along with the 2 you mentioned, that had no business being there..

 

[candycorn]

Still trying to to deflect and sidetrack I see...How does asking a question about something unrelated, answer what has been asked?

Deflect what?

The title of the thread is this:

9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: ....

Lightpoles were knocked down by something...obviously if the "conspiracy" was solved, it would have accoutned for this physical evidence. So what knocked it down if it wasn't AA77?

The discussion at hand was regarding the WTC buildings, and like always you have nothing to say that reflects well regarding your insane OCT regarding the WTC buildings...so in desperation, you try to change things up by mentioning something unrelated like the light poles...hundreds of ******* miles away...

...what happened at the Pentagon, light poles or not, plane or not, still does not answer or begin to explain the obvious and glaring problems NIST has with their narrative..

The discussion at hand is whatever I want it to be since you can't have a conspiracy in Washington but not one in New York or vice versa.

So it has to be explained and we're going on 12 years of you ducking the question. Keep ducking...we'll wait.

Meanwhile, you cannot quote one major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission Report--it's BULLET PROOF!

 

[SFC Ollie]

And I see we are still insisting on the disproved 10 second theory.... I really expected better.....

 

[Mr. Jones]

Deflect what?

The title of the thread is this:

9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: ....

Lightpoles were knocked down by something...obviously if the "conspiracy" was solved, it would have accoutned for this physical evidence. So what knocked it down if it wasn't AA77?

The discussion at hand was regarding the WTC buildings, and like always you have nothing to say that reflects well regarding your insane OCT regarding the WTC buildings...so in desperation, you try to change things up by mentioning something unrelated like the light poles...hundreds of ******* miles away...

...what happened at the Pentagon, light poles or not, plane or not, still does not answer or begin to explain the obvious and glaring problems NIST has with their narrative..

The discussion at hand is whatever I want it to be since you can't have a conspiracy in Washington but not one in New York or vice versa.

So it has to be explained and we're going on 12 years of you ducking the question. Keep ducking...we'll wait.

Meanwhile, you cannot quote one major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission Report--it's BULLET PROOF!

Meanwhile you have never been able to refute any of the posted information regarding the WTC that show that something else had to have assisted the demise of the buildings.
The 9-11 commission has for years now, been shown to be based on lies and is not regarded as being at all accurate, this comes from the panelists themselves.
All one need do is look at the information regarding the WTC buildings to know that the narrative is false The 9-11 commission report is itself based on tortured testimony, to even try to pass it off as legitimate, and go so far as to label it "bullet proof" is stupid.

But we already have known long ago, you are an anti American Zionist zealot, who tries desperately to legitimize that which can not stand.
Your appeal to the impossible with no proof of any legitimacy is stupid and only agreed with by other anti American Zionists zealots.
Your official conspiracy theory is based on BS, and has been exposed as BS. That is why you pop up every once in a while and try to resurrect long dead threads, and positions you defended, that were subsequently destroyed as illogical and impossible by science and physics, and not based on real facts.

 

[Mr. Jones]

And I see we are still insisting on the disproved 10 second theory.... I really expected better.....

No but you still are insisting on a NIST/Bazant theory that has been exposed as BS. But then you admitted to not knowing anything about it so how can you defend a position that you know nothing about?


The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick. Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel. The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There you go again with the melting steel. There was no molten steel and no one officially claimed that there was.

And you cannot explain what caused the buildings to bow in just before the collapse.

Nor can you explain how one Government report can be used to disprove another. Like I have been seeing here recently.

And you can't explain the lightpoles. As you have just shown us. Seems like anything that doesn't fit must not have happened.....

And your good buddy in here telling us the steel turned into dust right before our eyes....

Yep you guys have a great argument going here. Keep up the good work.......

 

[Mr. Jones]

There you go again with the melting steel. There was no molten steel and no one officially claimed that there was.

Yes there were, regarding the rubble piles. Why do you think it was even mentioned, and thousands of gallons of Pyrocool was used on them?

And you cannot explain what caused the buildings to bow in just before the collapse.

Um...you can not explain how fire did that..Plus like was mentioned before...You also said that you agreed the perimeter walls were ejected....I already posted on this, and mentioned that NIST's own testing failed to show the fires could have gotten hot enough, and lasted long enough to cause the trusses to fail and pull them in.
Why no comment from you on this failed testing?

Nor can you explain how one Government report can be used to disprove another. Like I have been seeing here recently.

Their reports have been used to verify how impossible the things they try to theorize are. Besides what do you know about any of this...I thought you tried to duck for cover by stating you don't understand it?

And you can't explain the lightpoles. As you have just shown us. Seems like anything that doesn't fit must not have happened.....

Lightpoles have nothing to do with what happened 100's of miles away at the WTC. Or does it in your mind somehow explain how they legitimize NIST in anyway?

And your good buddy in here telling us the steel turned into dust right before our eyes....

He brings up a good point, and the video is very strange and compelling.

Yep you guys have a great argument going here. Keep up the good work.......

Ok, but it's very easy to confuse you, and funny to watch you duck for cover by claiming ignorance, then try to jump back in the conversation with more BS and use circular reasoning that connects nothing, and does nothing to substantiate your wild CT.
You get stumped and bring up lightpoles? Yeah you're a real fart smellar....

You keep telling me that I can't explain things...why don't you question why it is that NIST can't explain or back up things, after all, it was them who were responsible to do the explaining...Ironic too in that you can't explain, why they can't explain!! But you side with them anyway!! Too funny!!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Here we go again. There was no molten steel, the only people who claimed there was were not anyone who could have looked at something and said yep that's steel. There was no molten steel recovered, from the descriptions there would have been tons of it, where did it go?

Yes we know why the buildings bowed in, just because you won't accept it doesn't mean it's not true. The fires did get hot enough to weaken and bow the steel trusses (notice I did not say melt). It is the only explanation for the bowing of the buildings.

You tell us the government is lying and covering this up by using a government report to try to disprove another government report, pretty piss poor coverup when you can't get your reports on the same sheet of music.

The lightpoles fit right in with the OP and we know for a fact that 77 brought them down. No matter what you want the truth to be.

And I posted videos where you can see the core fall, and you can see the dust coming off of it. It did not disintegrate as he says and as you want to weakly back up. Gee if only we could make steel vaporize warfare as we know it would be over.....

I'm not the confused one here, you are.......

 

[daws101]

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid ****..........

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

where I come from they call that rust. just 10% given the conditions in Manhattan and the WTC'S proximity to sea water I'D have thought it would be more.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Here we go again. There was no molten steel, the only people who claimed there was were not anyone who could have looked at something and said yep that's steel. There was no molten steel recovered, from the descriptions there would have been tons of it, where did it go?

You are a ******* idiot. Where did most of the ******* WTC debris go to Ollie? The molten steel/metal should not have been that hot to be described as "molten" in the first place you ******* dufus.

Yes we know why the buildings bowed in, just because you won't accept it doesn't mean it's not true. The fires did get hot enough to weaken and bow the steel trusses (notice I did not say melt). It is the only explanation for the bowing of the buildings.

Look idiot...You claim to have no idea what in the **** I'm talking about, or the technical info in the NIST report and because of that, you continue to engage in circular BS. It's like talking with an Alzheimer patient, or a 2 year old.
What part of NIST not proving this or NIST testing failed to prove this do you not ******* understand?

You tell us the government is lying and covering this up by using a government report to try to disprove another government report, pretty piss poor coverup when you can't get your reports on the same sheet of music.

You have no clue what the **** you are even talking about....You claim to not even understand any of the technical reports...How can you even coherantly comment on them?

The lightpoles fit right in with the OP and we know for a fact that 77 brought them down. No matter what you want the truth to be.

It doesn't matter if 77 did or not. Can't you understand that?

And I posted videos where you can see the core fall, and you can see the dust coming off of it. It did not disintegrate as he says and as you want to weakly back up. Gee if only we could make steel vaporize warfare as we know it would be over.....

So what Ollie? The video appears to show a part of the building weakly dissipating away. It does look like it blows away into a fine dust.. What about it? Fire can't do that, thermite can't do that..So what can? Nuclear weapons? Is there proof of nuclear fission at the WTC? Why yes as a matter of fact there is...Who collected this data? The USGS...It is a strange but true fact. Can it be helped? Nope it is what it is. Can we expect to learn anything about this? Not a chance.
The fact remains that the WTC buildings could not have physically been brought down in such short time by kerosene fires. NIST has a theory that they did, but when that theory is put through the test, it obviously fails.
You say it does not fail. We show you that it does. You say you don't understand any of it.
We say OK, then STFU about it since you say you don't understand it.
So why the **** are you still blabbering on about it, and in the process bring up ******* light poles that were hundreds of miles away, as if this now makes you incomprehensible blabbering any more ******* comprehensible???
Dude go to the VA post and have a few more shots, and post some more....

I'm not the confused one here, you are......

Sure thing bud...Sure thing....

 

[SFC Ollie]

**** you Jones, you have the same shit day after day and you've been proven wrong day after day to everyone except yourself and your deluded friends. And then you back up the most stupid of the stupid.

It doesn't matter what is proved or what isn't as far as you are concerned if it doesn't fit with what you want to be the truth then it's a lie.

So once again **** you and your stupidity. I have nothing to prove and you have failed at disproving anything. So there you go. The official investigation stands unless you can disprove it and you can't. Only by pointing your finger like 911nutjob and calling liar.

When you can show us any other way that the buildings bowed in let me know, And when you find that molten steel shaped like a river you let me know. And when you get your head out of your ass wash your hair..............

 

[SFC Ollie]

You see, I can make personal attacks too.........

 

[Mr. Jones]

Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001.

The fact that high-temperature phenomena were an important issue at Ground Zero is underscored by the large number of thermal images acquired: images by SPOT, MTI, AVIRIS/NASA, "Twin Otter"/U.S. Army, and at least 25 images by EarthData, taken between Sept. 16 and Oct. 25. In addition, temperature measurements by helicopter were taken each day, and the firefighters used onsite sensors too.

The heat at Ground Zero was not only extreme, it was also persistent, as proven not only by witness statements and a photograph by LiRo Group / Engineering of orange-red glowing steel as late as October 21, but also by thermal images taken by NASA and EarthData satellites. The EarthData thermal images also show that the “hot spots” remained at the same locations. The phenomenon did not “move” across the site, like one would expect from fire as it consumes the fuel available in any one location.

High Temperatures, Persistent Heat & 'Molten Steel' at WTC Site Contradict Official Story

SH&E at Ground Zero

 

[SFC Ollie]

Written by Richard Gage,

 

[daws101]

I have no proof? The video ITSELF is proof. What the **** does it take to be considered proof to you guys when your own eyes are disputed?

Now run along and find me JUST ONE video of the North Tower collapse that shows the core columns NOT disintegrating.

the clip is proof of collapse not disintegration

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

Here is an article that has been posted at various sites on the internet.

All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).

The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this, one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).

NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads -- their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?
The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective.

read the whole article....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU]Debunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using common sense - YouTube[/ame]

You keep on posting things that have already been proven false. The tops of the buildings were thinner, and could not have overcome the lower sections thicker, more robust, undamaged parts, within the short amount of time that is ESTIMATED.. period.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&lr=1]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

Repeating your outrageous tCT and using Nova, or NIST with nothing to support them IS STUPID.


The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick. Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel. The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.

BTW Daws, still think the Bazant theory is a "steaming pile" like you alluded to before?
******* idiot....

two things sister JONES None of what I've posted has been proven false. it's a fantasy you and others like you believe in.
nothing you have ever posted has even come close to proving a conspiracy by the government , the use of thermite or explosives, or space beams.
I laugh every time you make that completely erroneous declaration.
It's also a real hoot when you post so called refutations of other posts.
my favorite false claim made by you is "the laws of physics were( depending on what site you're cutting and pasting from) broken, altered, etc..
if that were so where is your precedence setting results proving the laws could be broken in the first place.?
you do understand that everything you post regarding the government, explosives thermite, in short the whole of your twoofer theory is based on a false premise, specious conjecture on that premise and denial of fact.
you have no quantifiable evidence of ant kind to back up you nonsense.

the other thing shit head is this "btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none."ME
in your obsessive zealotry you've either lost the ability to read or you never had it in the first place.
In that statement I never say that in my option " the Bazant hypothesis" is a steaming pile.
what I did say (since you are prone to willful misrepresentation) was that YOU SISTER JONES SHOW ME THE TEST RESULTS THAT PROVE the Bazant hypothesis IS EITHER FACT OR A STEAMING PILE.
YOU as always epically failed.
anyone without misfiring neurons could see that.