Title 18, "Misprision of treason" filed in District Court

[DiveCon]

I thought you were just pretending to be stupid!

The building was square.

When a column is cut it has lost its bearing capacity.

When an agent is exposed their subterfuge loses credibility





Why did the top of the tower fall to the south when 61% of the shear wall had been destroyed on the north side?

you ignore damage on the south side and the fact that momentum would carry the jet fuel more to that side thus causing more fires to be hotter on that side as well

 

[stannrodd]

When a column is cut it has lost its bearing capacity.

That might be true if there is only one perimeter column. But that wasn't the case.

We know the perimeter columns making up the majority of the towers exo-skeleton walls were built in a fashion, where there were three sets of columns structures, staggered per prefabbed unit. This was required to make the curtain effect useful structurally if damaged by an impact from a stray airliner. Such that if one perimeter column was breached the load bearing for that column was transferred to remaining columns.

There is no need for a concrete core and in fact there wasn't one.

So go and do something else Chris.. what a waste of your time mate .. I told you this in 2004 .. when you decided to misquote me.... JERK

Stann

 

[Christophera]

No independent verification for steel core columns has ever been presented. The concrete core is the only core that can be proven with evidence that has independent verification.

The end view of the WTC 1 concrete core wall on the west, narrow end of the core.

The spire is OUTSIDE of the core area and is the same box column as is seen north, outside. of WTC 1 north, long side core base wall.

 

[DiveCon]

No independent verification for steel core columns has ever been presented. The concrete core is the only core that can be proven with evidence that has independent verification.

The end view of the WTC 1 concrete core wall on the west, narrow end of the core.



The spire is OUTSIDE of the core area and is the same box column as is seen north, outside. of WTC 1 north, long side core base wall.

maybe if you actually had evidence that showed concrete in the core
but you don't
all the photos you post show either steel core or are not able to show anything of substance
thats why everyone thinks you are a ******* IDIOT

 

[stannrodd]

No independent verification for steel core columns has ever been presented.

The concrete core is the only core that can be proven with evidence that has independent verification.

Should read ..

"No independent verification for a concrete core has ever been presented. The steel core is the only core that can be proven with evidence that has absolute and total verification."

Stann

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I thought you were just pretending to be stupid!

The building was square.

When a column is cut it has lost its bearing capacity.

When an agent is exposed their subterfuge loses credibility





Why did the top of the tower fall to the south when 61% of the shear wall had been destroyed on the north side?

OK Brown, I did the math, just for you.

The north face of the tower was 1,368 foot tall x 207 foot wide for a total of 283,176 square feet.

A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 156 feet, and a tail height of 52 feet. I'm going to be generous here and allow a box dimension of 8,112 square feet, even though it would be much less than that because aircraft are not rectangular.

Now explain to me in clear English how 8,112 sq ft is 61% of 283,176 sq ft. Because by my calculations it comes out to only 2.86%

I await your answer, profiteer. And remember to use your words only. No bullshit debunked movies and links. No out of context or consolidated quotes. And no photos that we've seen a million times and know to be bullshit of the highest order.

 

[DiveCon]

I thought you were just pretending to be stupid!

The building was square.

When a column is cut it has lost its bearing capacity.

When an agent is exposed their subterfuge loses credibility





Why did the top of the tower fall to the south when 61% of the shear wall had been destroyed on the north side?

OK Brown, I did the math, just for you.

The north face of the tower was 1,368 foot tall x 207 foot wide for a total of 283,176 square feet.

A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 156 feet, and a tail height of 52 feet. I'm going to be generous here and allow a box dimension of 8,112 square feet, even though it would be much less than that because aircraft are not rectangular.

Now explain to me in clear English how 8,112 sq ft is 61% of 283,176 sq ft. Because by my calculations it comes out to only 2.86%

I await your answer, profiteer. And remember to use your words only. No bullshit debunked movies and links. No out of context or consolidated quotes. And no photos that we've seen a million times and know to be bullshit of the highest order.

he cant respond and meet those conditions

 

[Liability]

I thought you were just pretending to be stupid!

The building was square.

When a column is cut it has lost its bearing capacity.

When an agent is exposed their subterfuge loses credibility





Why did the top of the tower fall to the south when 61% of the shear wall had been destroyed on the north side?

I hereby stipulate and acknowledge or admit that the Twin Towers were about 208 feet on a side and the 4 sides formed a square.

See, CristoFEARa? It's easy to admit a fact.

Now it's your turn.

Can you admit that you claimed that the jets destroyed 61% of a WALL, when they jets did NOT destroy ANY such proportion of any wall or combination of walls? You did later waffle and address the destruction of the perimeter columns, but since the columns that got damaged were not destroyed until the collapse, you were wrong there, too. Can you admit that?

Got any balls at all?

Don't worry. Aint nobody counting on you having integrity or on your ability to respond honestly.

 

[Christophera]

lilybily,

Are you saying that 36 is NOT 60% of 1/4 of 240?

There is no way that jet fuel is going to weaken enough steel on the south side perimeter wall of WTC 1 to cause the top of WTC 1 to fall to the south.


The fires were not hot enough to cause the scale of failure seen.

So WHY did the top of WTC 1 fall to the south when 61% of the shear wall perimeter columns on the north side was destroyed?

BTW, your BS area calculations do not apply. SHame ful waste of taxpayer money in a black budget psyops.

 

[Liability]

* * *

Are you saying that 36 is NOT 60% of 1/4 of 240?

There is no way of saying something clearly enough for the retard you are to comprehend.

I am not quibbling about what number is 60 percent of some other number, asshole.

I am saying that YOU changed the terms in the middle of the discussion, ass-sucker.

FIRST you spoke of the destruction of 61% of the WALL. You did NOT address the question of what percentage of the columns were damaged. You discussed (a) the WALL and (b) DESTRUCTION (not damage).

Nowhere near 60 percent of the WALL was destroyed upon impact by the (relatively) small jetliner.

There is no way that jet fuel is going to weaken enough steel on the south side perimeter wall of WTC 1 to cause the top of WTC 1 to fall to the south.

You remain a lying asshole scum-sucker. The firs, which we all saw go on for a good long time, didn't weaken the perimeter wall, ****-face. That was never the claim, either, douche-rag. It weakened the metal connections (probably at the point of contact) that connected the core wall (steel) to the perimeter wall (also steel).

[The bullshit IMAGE ]http://algoxy.* * * * bullshit images will not be repeated when quoting your bullshit posts, ass-sucker[/ algoxy bullshit image]

The fires were not hot enough to cause the scale of failure seen.

They were hot enough to weaken the metal connections and that's all that was required under all of the conditioons of that horrible day, ass-sucker.

So WHY did the top of WTC 1 fall to the south when 61% of the shear wall perimeter columns on the north side was destroyed?

61% of the wall was not destroyed, asshole. Repeating your idiocy will never engender agreement with your idiocy, stupid. The building's top portion, when it started to topple, fell toward the area that was weakened and which buckled due to the damage and the fires. End of ******* story. Not a mystery. It's just that you are far too stupid and stubborn to grasp reality, ass-sucker.

Unintelligible blithering blathering ass-sucker bullshit idiocy snipped.

 

[Christophera]

For all structural purposes of a bearing shear wall, 61% of WTC 1's north shear wall was destroyed relating to the load over the zone of destruction because 61% of the columns were destroyed.

Why did the top of WTC 1 fall to the south instead of to the north as would be normal when bearing capacity of a shear wall is removed?

 

[DiveCon]

For all structural purposes of a bearing shear wall, 61% of WTC 1's north shear wall was destroyed relating to the load over the zone of destruction because 61% of the columns were destroyed.

Why did the top of WTC 1 fall to the south instead of to the north as would be normal when bearing capacity of a shear wall is removed?

wrong again, dipshit
61% of the columns were damaged, but not destroyed
they were destroyed at the point of impact, but thats not what you claimed

 

[Liability]

For all structural purposes of a bearing shear wall, 61% of WTC 1's north shear wall was destroyed relating to the load over the zone of destruction because 61% of the columns were destroyed.

See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/2260069-post1632.html

Your utter invalidity is astounding, CriscoFEARa, you maggot ******.

Why did the top of WTC 1 fall to the south instead of to the north as would be normal when bearing capacity of a shear wall is removed?

The answer that shows you are a ******* asshole hasn't changed since the last time you asked that stupid question and had it fully answered, scumbag.

 

[Trojan]

For all structural purposes of a bearing shear wall, 61% of WTC 1's north shear wall was destroyed relating to the load over the zone of destruction because 61% of the columns were destroyed.

Why did the top of WTC 1 fall to the south instead of to the north as would be normal when bearing capacity of a shear wall is removed?

I thought you proved treason like four months ago, now I check back and it looks like it was kicked out of court - what went wrong?

 

[Christophera]

Not "kicked out". The judges rejected their duty and made us civil plaintiffs against the traitors. We objected formally and asked for "cause" to do this.

The judge never responded. The US marshalls apologetically asked us how they could help. Their advice was erroneous. as were the judges actions.

This was filed.

As well as this.

The infiltration has gotten to the judges but the clerks know the law too.

 

[DiveCon]

Not "kicked out". The judges rejected their duty and made us civil plaintiffs against the traitors. We objected formally and asked for "cause" to do this.



The judge never responded. The US marshalls apologetically asked us how they could help. Their advice was erroneous. as were the judges actions.

This was filed.



As well as this.




The infiltration has gotten to the judges but the clerks know the law too.

keep at it ChristoFEARa
keep pestering that judge and accuse him of all kinds of delusional things

maybe he will finally give you what you deserve
lock you up for psychiatric evaluation

 

[Fizz]

Not "kicked out". The judges rejected their duty and made us civil plaintiffs against the traitors.

it looks like the judge came to the same conclusion that the rest of the world has.

that you are a ******* moron!!

(maybe if you didnt get kicked out of school in the 8th grade your writing would be more legible).

 

[Christophera]

The infiltrating perpetrators would want you to say something like that.

All the court had to do was create local rules that allowed a citizens to comply with,

TITLE 18, PART I , CHAPTER 115, §2382 U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2382. Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.


If the court had done that, it would be perfectly okay for them to accept the disclosure and do nothing.







By filing a civil suit in our name they blatantly told the world they refuse to do their duty.

 

[DiveCon]

The infiltrating perpetrators would want you to say something like that.

All the court had to do was create local rules that allowed a citizens to comply with,


If the court had done that, it would be perfectly okay for them to accept the disclosure and do nothing.







By filing a civil suit in our name they blatantly told the world they refuse to do their duty.

keep proving what a dipshit you are
its quite humorous

 

[Liability]

Not "kicked out". The judges rejected their duty and made us civil plaintiffs against the traitors. We objected formally and asked for "cause" to do this.

The judge never responded. The US marshalls apologetically asked us how they could help. Their advice was erroneous. as were the judges actions.

This was filed.

As well as this.

The infiltration has gotten to the judges but the clerks know the law too.

The hand printed "filing" was a nice touch, CriscoFEARa, you ******* ass-clown.

Next time, use crayons. Lots of reds, blues and greens.