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

[Patriot911]

YouTube - NIST - A WARNING FOR YOU!

It's true. There have been no changes to the codes for construction. How do i know this?
I have 3 copies of the codes right on my desk for reference from the last 15 years. None since 2001 or after address any of the problem the NIST report claim about thermal expansion.

And seriously? He actually compared the lid on a jar under hot water to a steel structure suffering from thermal expansion? That's ******* rich.

We're suppose to believe a piece of shit liar who CLAIMS to have 3 copies over the last 15 years and has compared them point for point to make sure there are no changes.

And don't worry, Obamerican, TakeAShit is reading everything. Their egos are far to big and fragile to allow them to ignore something said about them.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.

I'm sorry, did you say something?

 

[SFC Ollie]

It should come as no surprise that New York City, having been the subject of two separate terrorist attacks, has made a determined effort to upgrade its building code to incorporate lessons learned from the 9/11 disaster. On June 24, 2004, Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed Local Law 26 of 2004 which incorporated most of the recommendations of the World Trade Building Code Task Force, which was formed in March of 2002. This task force was a collaboration of public and private interests that worked in record time to recommend legislation that would enact into law most of the conclusions reached in the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse. Local Law 26 is not only prospective for new construction, but includes retroactive requirements for existing buildings of a certain size, i.e. usually over 75 feet in height. Some of the many requirements found in Local Law 26 are as follows:

With its incorporation of construction improvements, Local Law 26 provides the basis for the standard of care for design-builders that build projects potentially at risk. While New York City remains in the forefront of taking steps to ensure that the construction process responds to evolving terrorist threats, the New York City Building Code, which incorporates Local Law 26, is simply a baseline, or floor, to measure a design-builder's actions. As technology will, no doubt, advance more rapidly than building codes, design-builders must stay ahead of the curve and identify those construction practices and technological advances which should be incorporated into new construction.

The Construction Standard of Care After 9/11 - Zetlin & De Chiara

 

[Patriot911]

This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.

I'm sorry, did you say something?

Yes I did. And everyone but you can read it. Do you really think ignoring people makes you somehow more intelligent? Or does it make you look like a lame asshole who can't respond to valid issues with his statement? I'll give you a hint. It's the second one, asshole!

 

[Patriot911]

It should come as no surprise that New York City, having been the subject of two separate terrorist attacks, has made a determined effort to upgrade its building code to incorporate lessons learned from the 9/11 disaster. On June 24, 2004, Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed Local Law 26 of 2004 which incorporated most of the recommendations of the World Trade Building Code Task Force, which was formed in March of 2002. This task force was a collaboration of public and private interests that worked in record time to recommend legislation that would enact into law most of the conclusions reached in the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse. Local Law 26 is not only prospective for new construction, but includes retroactive requirements for existing buildings of a certain size, i.e. usually over 75 feet in height. Some of the many requirements found in Local Law 26 are as follows:

With its incorporation of construction improvements, Local Law 26 provides the basis for the standard of care for design-builders that build projects potentially at risk. While New York City remains in the forefront of taking steps to ensure that the construction process responds to evolving terrorist threats, the New York City Building Code, which incorporates Local Law 26, is simply a baseline, or floor, to measure a design-builder's actions. As technology will, no doubt, advance more rapidly than building codes, design-builders must stay ahead of the curve and identify those construction practices and technological advances which should be incorporated into new construction.

The Construction Standard of Care After 9/11 - Zetlin & De Chiara

But... but.... but..... TakeAShit ASSURES us that he has done his homework and there haven't been any code changes at all since 9/11! Surely he wouldn't LIE to everyone like he did with his supposed credentials, right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry, ladies, you're on my ignore list. Which means I can read whatever nonsense you wrote. But it's nice to see you two rump rangers are still drooling at the keyboard just waiting to slander someone.

Maybe go outside today??

 

[Patriot911]

Sorry, ladies, you're on my ignore list. Which means I can read whatever nonsense you wrote. But it's nice to see you two rump rangers are still drooling at the keyboard just waiting to slander someone.

Maybe go outside today??

What makes you think we care if we are on your ignore list? I can only speak for myself, but I don't expose your ignorance for your sake. I know I will never change the mind of an ignorant ass like you. So I respond to your lunacy for everyone else who reads these threads. You having me on ignore only makes you look really REALLY pathetic. Not that your posts don't do an excellent job of exposing your ignorance already. Good thing you have Ollie on ignore as he proves you lied yet again when you claimed there are no code changes. Then again, a retarded cat would know that there have been code changes since 2001. One would think an engineer would understand that code changes happen very frequently. Then again, someone lying about being an engineer and having the code books wouldn't necessarily understand how often codes change. After all, fantasy land is whatever you want it to be!!

Have fun pretending you're not reading all this! We all know your ego is WAAAAY to big for you to not read a response!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This message is hidden because Patriot911 is on your ignore list.

 

[Patriot911]

Anyone else need proof the truthtard bowel movement is a complete and utter failure? Truthtards can't back their shit up and have to resort to putting anyone they can't debate on ignore. TakeAShit is a prime example. He has been reduced to a completely meaningless troll. Think anyone is going to listen to someone who has nothing to say? Way to go, TakeAShit!

 

[Triton]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

 

[Gamolon]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

 

[Patriot911]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

So what is your real evidence that it was brought down by controlled demolition? Don't tell me. Let me guess. It LOOKED like a controlled demolition to you, so therefore it MUST be a controlled demolition, end of story. Yeah, that's what it boils down to.

How do you explain the complete lack of explosions? Your "PROOF" that it was a controlled demolition is that it looks like one. The only way to do a controlled demolition with that kind of accuracy is with high explosives. Thermite doesn't work with the precision needed. There are numerous audio tracks of the collapse from several sources. None of them have the telltale explosions from high explosives.

So who are we to believe? Our own ears? Or a truthtard who is all wet?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

Especially here with this crowd. There is a group that spend day and night trying to deflect the scientific evidence by attempting to smear the character of those they oppose rather than offering any evidence to the contrary. That's why butt nuggets like Patriot (oh, the irony there) and his partner Ollie, just get the ignore list from me. I have no time to keep jumping back through the fruit loop with these type of dumb hicks. It's pointless.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I actually feel kind of bad for them. Obviously their lives are so boring, they have nothing better to do in the world than continue to make rude remarks towards others, all the while never addressing the science/evidence being displayed.

Must be boring as **** in that little farm town in Mississippi.

 

[Gamolon]

I actually feel kind of bad for them. Obviously their lives are so boring, they have nothing better to do in the world than continue to make rude remarks towards others, all the while never addressing the science/evidence being displayed.

Must be boring as **** in that little farm town in Mississippi.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.

Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.

There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower, and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAk3u4i_zkg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible[/ame]
Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.

 

[Mr. Jones]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY&feature=email]YouTube - NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed![/ame]

 

[Triton]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

So what is your real evidence that it was brought down by controlled demolition? Don't tell me. Let me guess. It LOOKED like a controlled demolition to you, so therefore it MUST be a controlled demolition, end of story. Yeah, that's what it boils down to.

How do you explain the complete lack of explosions? Your "PROOF" that it was a controlled demolition is that it looks like one. The only way to do a controlled demolition with that kind of accuracy is with high explosives. Thermite doesn't work with the precision needed. There are numerous audio tracks of the collapse from several sources. None of them have the telltale explosions from high explosives.

So who are we to believe? Our own ears? Or a truthtard who is all wet?

Mr. Patriot, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this message board is now dumber for having read it.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Truthtard? seriously?

 

[Triton]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

Yeah they ignore the obvious that something other then hydrocarbon fires had to be present to produce the molten metal under all 3 buildings. They insist that the fires were hot and intense enough to weaken all the major support columns at the same time to produce a 2.25 sec. free fall collapse but ignore the the molten metal. They also ignore the outward explosive ejections of material, and the fact that the buildings fell down in such a uniform manner, that contradicts the sporadic damage.

Independent scientist using advanced techniques led to the discovery of nano thermite particles in the WTC dust, they also found iron, sulfur, manganese which is characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel which is called thermate.
Thermite incendiary cutter charges do in fact exist, and are what is speculated to have caused the extreme heat that produced the molten metal that lasted for 3 months under the rubble, despite the attempts to extinguish it, even using a chemical known as Pyrocool.

There is solid physical evidence that points to thermitic reactions at the WTC. The video evidence of a thermitic action dripping from the S tower, and the underground fires, as well as the iron spheres that scientists have found, as well as the evidence of it in the dust.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAk3u4i_zkg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible[/ame]
Anyone who insist that thermitic cutting charges are not reliable or insist that the possibility of them being used is remote, doesn't know about it or is lying.
Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.

So, are you saying that the 47 story steel framed building fell at near free fall speed into its own foundation 8 hours after the twin towers collapsed despite no airplane striking it and with only sporadic fires on 7-8 floors because of............controlled demolition?

YOU'RE INSANE!

Surely the 19 cavemen did it, oh wait, no plane hit the building, so um...UM.........You're a TRUTHTARD!

 

[Patriot911]

I don't even engage in the debate of WTC 7 collapse anymore.

Presenting the obvious truth to some people that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when they believe otherwise is akin to convincing someone the sky is blue when they believe otherwise.

No amount of evidence nor reason can be used with them

So what is your real evidence that it was brought down by controlled demolition? Don't tell me. Let me guess. It LOOKED like a controlled demolition to you, so therefore it MUST be a controlled demolition, end of story. Yeah, that's what it boils down to.

How do you explain the complete lack of explosions? Your "PROOF" that it was a controlled demolition is that it looks like one. The only way to do a controlled demolition with that kind of accuracy is with high explosives. Thermite doesn't work with the precision needed. There are numerous audio tracks of the collapse from several sources. None of them have the telltale explosions from high explosives.

So who are we to believe? Our own ears? Or a truthtard who is all wet?

Mr. Patriot, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this message board is now dumber for having read it.

In other words, you couldn't refute it so you have to whine about it like a little *****. Got it.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

What makes you think I would want ANYTHING from a coward like you?

Truthtard? seriously?

Yep. Retarded ****** who can't debate the topic so runs away. That perfectly describes you. Get use to it.