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

[Patriot911]

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?

I see,so it was just another irrelevant pointless statement...got ya[/QUOTE]

It isn't my fault you have your head so far up your ass you can't understand the very relevant points other people are trying to make. The discussion isn't about what caused the collapse. The discussion is why the NIST didn't say the design was faulty. Now, if WTC 7 had collapsed early or for no apparent reason, the design might be called into fault, but it performed better than required.

Now go ahead and pretend the only point that matters in this discussion is now what caused the collapse despite all the posts prior to this one.

 

[Patriot911]

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

Well, if you're so damn stupid you can't figure out the difference between normal text and links, you're going to have a very long wait. I'm not going to hold your hand for you as if you are some retarded little child. Maybe you can ask some kids to show you the difference between links and non links. They are far more intelligent than you are by every indication you've given.

 

[eots]

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?

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

It isn't my fault you have your head so far up your ass you can't understand the very relevant points other people are trying to make. The discussion isn't about what caused the collapse. The discussion is why the NIST didn't say the design was faulty. Now, if WTC 7 had collapsed early or for no apparent reason, the design might be called into fault, but it performed better than required.

Now go ahead and pretend the only point that matters in this discussion is now what caused the collapse despite all the posts prior to this one. [/QUOTE

]

please provide a link to your made up fact that steel frame hi rise buildings are expected to collapse completely in secs within in 4 hrs of a building fire

I will be waiting...and waiting and....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Patriot is toilet paper. Stop wasting your time on him. His arguments and Points are invalid and deceitful. Anyone who believes his diaper of shit is hopeless.


Get prepared.


New Madrid had a small quake today...they will intensify.

 

[eots]

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

Well, if you're so damn stupid you can't figure out the difference between normal text and links, you're going to have a very long wait. I'm not going to hold your hand for you as if you are some retarded little child. Maybe you can ask some kids to show you the difference between links and non links. They are far more intelligent than you are by every indication you've given.

translation = sorry eots but there is no link or source I can provide for my made up facts

 

[Gamolon]

where did I say no building codes ..

Right here you ******* loser...

THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS..NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE THEW MONKEY YOU ARE

Were you able to see what you posted above?

What a deceptive piece of shit you are. No wonder the truth movement fails continually. Not only are all the theories based on bullshit, but it has people like you.

 

[Patriot911]

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

It isn't my fault you have your head so far up your ass you can't understand the very relevant points other people are trying to make. The discussion isn't about what caused the collapse. The discussion is why the NIST didn't say the design was faulty. Now, if WTC 7 had collapsed early or for no apparent reason, the design might be called into fault, but it performed better than required.

Now go ahead and pretend the only point that matters in this discussion is now what caused the collapse despite all the posts prior to this one. [/QUOTE

]

please provide a link to your made up fact that steel frame hi rise buildings are expected to collapse completely in secs within in 4 hrs of a building fire

I will be waiting...and waiting and....

Yet another bullshit lie from eots. The list keeps growing and growing! Where did I even REMOTELY say highrise buildings are expected to collapse completely in seconds within four hours of a building fire? Are you so ******* stupid you can't even read English so you just make shit up? Or is it just your inability to tell the truth so you make shit up.

 

[Gamolon]

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

Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.

 

[eots]

where did I say no building codes ..

Right here you ******* loser...

THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS..NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE THEW MONKEY YOU ARE

Were you able to see what you posted above?

What a deceptive piece of shit you are. No wonder the truth movement fails continually. Not only are all the theories based on bullshit, but it has people like you.

THE PAPER YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT THE TOWERS AND i AM CORRECT THE BUILDING DESIGN OF WTC 7 WAS NEVER CALLED INTO FAULT

 

[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

Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.

engineers are well aware of the effects of fire on steel and have been for a long time now

 

[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

Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.

engineers are well aware of the effects of fire on steel and have been for a long time now

Yet engineers do not design structures to withstand the effects of thermal expansion due to office fire as has been pointed out to you numerous times. If the engineers did, they wouldn't put fire retardant on the steel that prevents thermal expansion now would they. eots goes down in flames again, clueless as usual.

 

[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

Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.

yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too minimal for concern
lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol

 

[Patriot911]

where did I say no building codes ..

Right here you ******* loser...

THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS..NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE THEW MONKEY YOU ARE

Were you able to see what you posted above?

What a deceptive piece of shit you are. No wonder the truth movement fails continually. Not only are all the theories based on bullshit, but it has people like you.

THE PAPER YOU POSTED WAS ABOUT THE TOWERS AND i AM CORRECT THE BUILDING DESIGN OF WTC 7 WAS NEVER CALLED INTO FAULT

Calm down, child. The paper posted was about the changes to the building and fire codes from the NIST studies. Nothing in there limited it to just the towers.

And everyone agrees that the design of WTC 7 was never called into fault. Why? Because the design of WTC 7 wasn't at fault. It didn't collapse pre-maturely even though it was never designed to survive the circumstances it was put under on 9/11. I would feel perfectly safe working in a building designed exactly like WTC 7. Look at what the building had to go through before it collapsed!

 

[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

Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.

yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too minimal for concern
lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol

And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!

The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.

And you are right. Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.

Anything else you need explained to you?

 

[eots]

Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.

yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too minimal for concern
lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol

And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!

The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.

And you are right. Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.

Anything else you need explained to you?

so what happened to the fire retardant in building 7...retard

 

[eots]

why do engineers of hi rise structures not take into consideration thermal expansion from fire, if the take into consideration for ...sunshine...lol

 

[eots]

Eots, you stupid git...

You fail at comprehension. It was the way the design REACTED to the fire. It was the way the STEEL reacted to the fire. There was no "design flaw". As has been stated to you time and time again, structural engineers never designed a steel structure to compensate for thermal expansion due to an office fire.

I posted links that directly refuted this claim of yours and you just ignored it as usual.

yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too minimal for concern
lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol

And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!

The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.

And you are right. Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.

Anything else you need explained to you?

well we made sure the building doesn't collapse in the hot sun...but damn we forgot about fire !

 

[Patriot911]

yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too minimal for concern
lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol

And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!

The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.

And you are right. Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.

Anything else you need explained to you?

so what happened to the fire retardant in building 7...retard

What do you think happened to it? Are you so ******* stupid that you think fire retardant just works forever and is some kind of miracle substance? You should really bother to do SOME research before exposing your utter ignorance to the world like that.

Fire retardant comes in ratings that state the retardant will keep the steel from heating to the point of failure for X amount of time, usually a value between one and six hours. I don't know what the codes were when WTC 7 was built. I know most structures are rated for at least four hours.

Let's see. The North Tower, the one that did the most damage to WTC 7, collapsed at 10:28 am. WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 pm. Almost 7 hours later.

Here are some examples of fire retardants. This one is good for one hour. This is their top of the line good for 4 hours. Here is one for structural steel that is only good for 2.5 hours.

Still want to keep on pretending you know what the **** you're talking about? You lose. Again. Anyone surprised? I'm not.

 

[Patriot911]

yes they do ..and they calculate it o being too minimal for concern
lol...so steel structures everywhere are in danger of falling in fire because engineers are blind to the new discovery of thermal expansion...lol

And the ignorant fucktard justifies why everyone laughs at him!

The thermal expansion engineers design for isn't the thermal expansion it would experience during a fire, but for the varying temperatures a building encounters through the days and seasons.

And you are right. Everyone WOULD be in danger of steel structures failing due to fire..... if fire retardant wasn't used all over the place to prevent the steel from heating up and expanding.

Anything else you need explained to you?

well we made sure the building doesn't collapse in the hot sun...but damn we forgot about fire !

More ignorant bullshit from eots. Which part of "they don't have to design for fire because fire retardant is suppose to protect the steel long enough to evacuate the building" do you not understand? Yes, I realize there are some big words in there. Which ones don't you understand and I will try and simplify for you.

 

[Patriot911]

why do engineers of hi rise structures not take into consideration thermal expansion from fire, if the take into consideration for ...sunshine...lol

Because the fire retardant prevents the heat from the fire from affecting the steel long enough for people to get out. This is NOT a hard concept, yet seems to be a concept far beyond what your simple mind can comprehend.