Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?

[Gamolon]

Here you are in this post claiming to have some expert knowledge in the collapse scenario because you worked with piping, does that make you an expert?

Wrong dipshit.

I worked in an engineering firm for many years. Piping design was just ONE of my jobs. I was an on-site construction supervisor for many different steel mill projects INCLUDING blast furnace renovations. I did rolling mill studies. I designed hydraulic systems for casting plants. I did on-site damage assessment for disaster sites including the Shell Oil site in Belpre, OH (Belpre blast alarm ignored says Shell-14/11/1994-ECN) and at the IMC/Angus nitroparaffin plant in Sterlington, LA (Belpre blast alarm ignored says Shell-14/11/1994-ECN). I did design work for the Army Corp of Engineers on the Toole, Utah Chemical Agent Disposal facility (Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I was a project supervisor for the installation of an Oxygen pipe line in the River Rouge steel mill in Michigan. I've done structural, architectural, and mechanical design. I've done HVAC design.

So yeah, I say I know what I'm talking about.

What have you done?

you are not a engineer

Your point? I have worked with enough structural engineers to know you and your ilk are nothing but spineless pussies who run from every tough question and instead post youtube videos because you can't think for yourself.

Just like the idiot Mr. Jones who tried to post bullshit that was COPIED from another site yet made it look like he/she knew the subject. Didn't give a link nor posted it as a quote. What a dope.

Typical dishonest bullshit.

 

[eots]

Wrong dipshit.

I worked in an engineering firm for many years. Piping design was just ONE of my jobs. I was an on-site construction supervisor for many different steel mill projects INCLUDING blast furnace renovations. I did rolling mill studies. I designed hydraulic systems for casting plants. I did on-site damage assessment for disaster sites including the Shell Oil site in Belpre, OH (Belpre blast alarm ignored says Shell-14/11/1994-ECN) and at the IMC/Angus nitroparaffin plant in Sterlington, LA (Belpre blast alarm ignored says Shell-14/11/1994-ECN). I did design work for the Army Corp of Engineers on the Toole, Utah Chemical Agent Disposal facility (Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I was a project supervisor for the installation of an Oxygen pipe line in the River Rouge steel mill in Michigan. I've done structural, architectural, and mechanical design. I've done HVAC design.

So yeah, I say I know what I'm talking about.

What have you done?

you are not a engineer

Your point? I have worked with enough structural engineers to know you and your ilk are nothing but spineless pussies who run from every tough question and instead post youtube videos because you can't think for yourself.

Just like the idiot Mr. Jones who tried to post bullshit that was COPIED from another site yet made it look like he/she knew the subject. Didn't give a link nor posted it as a quote. What a dope.

Typical dishonest bullshit.

now you sound more like liarability than an engineer

 

[Gamolon]

you are not a engineer

Your point? I have worked with enough structural engineers to know you and your ilk are nothing but spineless pussies who run from every tough question and instead post youtube videos because you can't think for yourself.

Just like the idiot Mr. Jones who tried to post bullshit that was COPIED from another site yet made it look like he/she knew the subject. Didn't give a link nor posted it as a quote. What a dope.

Typical dishonest bullshit.

now you sound more like liarability than an engineer

Still the truth isn't it eots?

 

[Liability]

you are not a engineer

Your point? I have worked with enough structural engineers to know you and your ilk are nothing but spineless pussies who run from every tough question and instead post youtube videos because you can't think for yourself.

Just like the idiot Mr. Jones who tried to post bullshit that was COPIED from another site yet made it look like he/she knew the subject. Didn't give a link nor posted it as a quote. What a dope.

Typical dishonest bullshit.

now you sound more like liarability than an engineer

Hey shit-brain. Yeah, id-eots, that means you,

You lackluster fuckwits toss around terms like "liar" pretty casually. But you couldn't point to one lie I ever posted if your worthless life depended on it.

9/11 Troofers detest the truth. Your name itself is ironic. Tuther. Pfft. "9/11 Liars for the Dissemination of loopy utterly baseless ridiculous conspiracy theories." There. It's too long, but it is much more accurate in describing you and the shit you spew, asshole.

You guys are rat twats.

 

[eots]

Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth.org


Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

gee... Deets, Bowman....OR THE SHITSTAIN KNOWN AS LIARABILITY...TOUGH CALL...LOL

 

[Patriot911]

Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth.org


Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

gee... Deets, Bowman....OR THE SHITSTAIN KNOWN AS LIARABILITY...TOUGH CALL...LOL

So you have a couple jackasses in Deets and Bowman who are too stupid to understand the real world. No thank you! I wouldn't trust anything any one of you fucking truthtards said at face value. You have to PROVE your claims, not just make them. Credibility only gets you so far and no further.

Deets claims he can tell everything just by looking at it. Fucking moron! What kind of person wouldn't look at the evidence and just go off of visuals?

Bowman makes claims he can't back up.

eots is a lying sack of shit who can't back up any of his shit either.

So given the evidence and common sense, I would take anyone not a truthtard over Bowman, Deets, eots or any other truthtard. The odds are overwhelmingly in my favor that I will come closer to the truth with anyone else than what a truthtard claims. It is a fact of life.

Oh, and eots.... you do know opinions are not evidence, right? Fucking moron!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Dwain Deets, who believes that that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and that no plane actually hit it.

Dwain Deets who believes that 5 light poles mysteriously broke off from their bases.

Dwain Deets who is obviously another nut case.

Where did the plane go. There are no witnesses who saw it over the Pentagon or east of the pentagon.

We have the black boxes from the pentagon, if the flight data was faked why would they fake it so that it would be impossible to be true? Think..............This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Of which Mr Deets talks about but shows little of.

 

[PhysicsExist]

 

[eots]

Dwain Deets, who believes that that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and that no plane actually hit it.

Dwain Deets who believes that 5 light poles mysteriously broke off from their bases.

Dwain Deets who is obviously another nut case.

Where did the plane go. There are no witnesses who saw it over the Pentagon or east of the pentagon.

We have the black boxes from the pentagon, if the flight data was faked why would they fake it so that it would be impossible to be true? Think..............This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Of which Mr Deets talks about but shows little of.

got a link to any of these alleged statements Ollie

 

[eots]

Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth.org


Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

gee... Deets, Bowman....OR THE SHITSTAIN KNOWN AS LIARABILITY...TOUGH CALL...LOL

So you have a couple jackasses in Deets and Bowman who are too stupid to understand the real world. No thank you! I wouldn't trust anything any one of you fucking truthtards said at face value. You have to PROVE your claims, not just make them. Credibility only gets you so far and no further.

Deets claims he can tell everything just by looking at it. Fucking moron! What kind of person wouldn't look at the evidence and just go off of visuals?

Bowman makes claims he can't back up.

eots is a lying sack of shit who can't back up any of his shit either.

So given the evidence and common sense, I would take anyone not a truthtard over Bowman, Deets, eots or any other truthtard. The odds are overwhelmingly in my favor that I will come closer to the truth with anyone else than what a truthtard claims. It is a fact of life.

Oh, and eots.... you do know opinions are not evidence, right? Fucking moron!

yes you belong on team liarability indeed, good choice... for you

 

[Gamolon]

*sigh*

You're just too stupid to even BEGIN to understand. If a steel column expands, it will shear the bolted connections thus rendering the structure weaker as a whole. This didn't happen in one spot you fucking imbecile. Not to mention that the heat WEAKENS, not MELTS, steel components. If you put a load on a steel beam, and apply heat, it starts to lose it's ability to support that load. As the temperature climbs, the weaker it gets. You idiots can't seem to grasp that. o talk to a structural engineer and ask about it.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.
If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.
This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.
Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C
It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.
Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.

What a fucking dishonest prick you are! You try and pass off the above paragraph as if YOU wrote it on your own and try to get some credibility for yourself? You disgust me. I KNEW it sounded way more intelligent then you could possibly be on this subject so I searched for a line of text from above. What did I find? You fucking copy and pasted it from another site. Why wasn't it in quotes and why didn't you link the source you dishonest fuckwit?

You've been busted. This is how you assholes operate.

Here is the site you copied it from.
George Washington's Blog: Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires <i>Cooler</i>

And here is the exact same paragraph from the site.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."

Run Mr. Jones, RUN!!!!!

 

[Mr. Jones]

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.
If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.
This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.
Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C
It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.
Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.

What a fucking dishonest prick you are! You try and pass off the above paragraph as if YOU wrote it on your own and try to get some credibility for yourself? You disgust me. I KNEW it sounded way more intelligent then you could possibly be on this subject so I searched for a line of text from above. What did I find? You fucking copy and pasted it from another site. Why wasn't it in quotes and why didn't you link the source you dishonest fuckwit?

You've been busted. This is how you assholes operate.

Here is the site you copied it from.
George Washington's Blog: Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires <i>Cooler</i>

And here is the exact same paragraph from the site.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."

Run Mr. Jones, RUN!!!!!

LOL, It looks like you're busted, dipshit. Once again, you ignore the facts that pertain to the topic, and sidetrack by crying over a missing link. FYI, I got that piece of information from a note I created about fire temps and it was not from the georgewashington.blogspot. I always take notes, and provide a link on here, when I gather useful information, provided I have the link, which in this case I could not find.
It should be very obvious to anyone who reads it
So you actually did me a favor as the GWblog site had the source where I got my notes! And you show that what is in the article, is of no relevance to you.
It might be of benefit to you, to read this article from an expert in the field of what was being discussed, instead of playing your childish games..but that's not why you're here is it...
You're here to sidetrack, and create an atmosphere of disinformation, while trying to tell people that a building they can clearly see fall straight down..didn't

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

 

[Gamolon]

What a fucking dishonest prick you are! You try and pass off the above paragraph as if YOU wrote it on your own and try to get some credibility for yourself? You disgust me. I KNEW it sounded way more intelligent then you could possibly be on this subject so I searched for a line of text from above. What did I find? You fucking copy and pasted it from another site. Why wasn't it in quotes and why didn't you link the source you dishonest fuckwit?

You've been busted. This is how you assholes operate.

Here is the site you copied it from.
George Washington's Blog: Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires <i>Cooler</i>

And here is the exact same paragraph from the site.

Run Mr. Jones, RUN!!!!!

LOL, It looks like you're busted, dipshit. Once again, you ignore the facts that pertain to the topic, and sidetrack by crying over a missing link. FYI, I got that piece of information from a note I created about fire temps and it was not from the georgewashington.blogspot. I always take notes, and provide a link on here, when I gather useful information, provided I have the link, which in this case I could not find.

Right. Twice in two different posts with two different pieces of information?

You're a lying twat.

Nice try though.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What a fucking dishonest prick you are! You try and pass off the above paragraph as if YOU wrote it on your own and try to get some credibility for yourself? You disgust me. I KNEW it sounded way more intelligent then you could possibly be on this subject so I searched for a line of text from above. What did I find? You fucking copy and pasted it from another site. Why wasn't it in quotes and why didn't you link the source you dishonest fuckwit?

You've been busted. This is how you assholes operate.

Here is the site you copied it from.
George Washington's Blog: Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires <i>Cooler</i>

And here is the exact same paragraph from the site.

Run Mr. Jones, RUN!!!!!

LOL, It looks like you're busted, dipshit. Once again, you ignore the facts that pertain to the topic, and sidetrack by crying over a missing link. FYI, I got that piece of information from a note I created about fire temps and it was not from the georgewashington.blogspot. I always take notes, and provide a link on here, when I gather useful information, provided I have the link, which in this case I could not find.
It should be very obvious to anyone who reads it
So you actually did me a favor as the GWblog site had the source where I got my notes! And you show that what is in the article, is of no relevance to you.
It might be of benefit to you, to read this article from an expert in the field of what was being discussed, instead of playing your childish games..but that's not why you're here is it...
You're here to sidetrack, and create an atmosphere of disinformation, while trying to tell people that a building they can clearly see fall straight down..didn't

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Except for the facts that get in the way. WTC 7 did not exactly fall straight down. I don't know why everyone wants to pretend that it did.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Run Mr. Jones, RUN!!!!!

LOL, It looks like you're busted, dipshit. Once again, you ignore the facts that pertain to the topic, and sidetrack by crying over a missing link. FYI, I got that piece of information from a note I created about fire temps and it was not from the georgewashington.blogspot. I always take notes, and provide a link on here, when I gather useful information, provided I have the link, which in this case I could not find.

Right. Twice in two different posts with two different pieces of information?

You're a lying twat.

Nice try though.

Hey you crying little bitch go and dispute what the article says, instead of crying about where the info came from, would you like me to post more of my notes so you can go on another wild goose chase you stupid moron?
You got absolutely nothing to dispute the facts of the post so you resort to questioning where it came from?? You crying little beeeach

here ya go some more notes I have about the topic... go and try to find this, instead of debating the facts LOL !

Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small.

The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.

All of your attempts to show how you have this vast engineering experience is BS too, you are a liar and your NIST theory has been proven to be questionable if not all together corrupted, shit you can't even admit the building collapsed in a straight down manner
You are an idiot, if you expect us to believe that someone like you that can't even admit what is plainly obvious, that you have even any semblance of credibility, that's why you resort to what disinformation trolls do, deflect the topic, attack where info came from, instead of responding with any reasonable counter response!

Wasn't it you that posted a picture of railroad tracks? Or the diagram of the WTC 7 beams? Look fuckwad I'll be happy to post links to everything , and guess what? You'll still not be able to prove your asinine theory, that a building with isolated damage, and isolated fires can possibly come down in a straight down fashion while experiencing freefall!!

alleged damage to the WTC 7 building to cause this kind of collapse without being hit by a plane is BS, and NIST can not prove it, without resorting to some BS computer model that looks nothing like the actual collapse!
You come back when you can prove your crazy theory cause right now the only thing that can reasonably explain its collapse is controlled demolition.

Go look this up-The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it.

or this-FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence.

The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.
Why is this??

The hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures).
Explain this to us.... c'mon you have so much knowledge, working with piping and all Use your own notes.

How come when I fabricated and installed custom piping applying temps way hotter then in the WTC 7 fire...nothing "expanded" or collapsed in a pile of rubble? Go ahead genius make our day, I need a good laugh.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Run Mr. Jones, RUN!!!!!

LOL, It looks like you're busted, dipshit. Once again, you ignore the facts that pertain to the topic, and sidetrack by crying over a missing link. FYI, I got that piece of information from a note I created about fire temps and it was not from the georgewashington.blogspot. I always take notes, and provide a link on here, when I gather useful information, provided I have the link, which in this case I could not find.
It should be very obvious to anyone who reads it
So you actually did me a favor as the GWblog site had the source where I got my notes! And you show that what is in the article, is of no relevance to you.
It might be of benefit to you, to read this article from an expert in the field of what was being discussed, instead of playing your childish games..but that's not why you're here is it...
You're here to sidetrack, and create an atmosphere of disinformation, while trying to tell people that a building they can clearly see fall straight down..didn't

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Except for the facts that get in the way. WTC 7 did not exactly fall straight down. I don't know why everyone wants to pretend that it did.

Ok then in your twisted mind how did it fall?

 

[eots]

With a slight lean... you know... like most controlled demolition

 

[SFC Ollie]

LOL, It looks like you're busted, dipshit. Once again, you ignore the facts that pertain to the topic, and sidetrack by crying over a missing link. FYI, I got that piece of information from a note I created about fire temps and it was not from the georgewashington.blogspot. I always take notes, and provide a link on here, when I gather useful information, provided I have the link, which in this case I could not find.
It should be very obvious to anyone who reads it
So you actually did me a favor as the GWblog site had the source where I got my notes! And you show that what is in the article, is of no relevance to you.
It might be of benefit to you, to read this article from an expert in the field of what was being discussed, instead of playing your childish games..but that's not why you're here is it...
You're here to sidetrack, and create an atmosphere of disinformation, while trying to tell people that a building they can clearly see fall straight down..didn't

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Except for the facts that get in the way. WTC 7 did not exactly fall straight down. I don't know why everyone wants to pretend that it did.

Ok then in your twisted mind how did it fall?

Not my twisted mind, yours.

If you are honest with yourself and watch the complete video. You see that the east penthouse disappears into the center of the building. several seconds later the west penthouse goes, followed by the facade. This is a progressive collapse. And if you look hard enough you will find that the roof line of the facade didn't really stay straight either, but buckled in the center area. I don't know why nor do I pretend to know what that means, but that's the way it happened.

And what is all this about minimal fires? Have you ever tried to see what was going on on the south side of the building? You know, the side that was actually damaged by tower 1 falling on top of it?

YouTube - WTC 7 fires and south side hole

 

[LA RAM FAN]

ask the asswipe trolls how come all protocals were violated that day,evidence was destroyed and removed and not one person lost their job for their alleged incompetence at NORAD or nobody arrested for the illegal destruction of evidence.thats why all these 9/11 discussions are all for nothing,the case is closed that it was an inside job.these shills and Brainwashed Bush dupes cant get around that fact which is why all these 9/11 discussions are mute. The Minnesota senator asked those questions to congress and was removed from office shortly after that.anytime people in government question the official version they get removed from office.why waste time with trolls like them when they cant get around these facts?

 

[SFC Ollie]

ask the asswipe trolls how come all protocals were violated that day,evidence was destroyed and removed and not one person lost their job for their alleged incompetence at NORAD or nobody arrested for the illegal destruction of evidence.thats why all these 9/11 discussions are all for nothing,the case is closed that it was an inside job.these shills and Brainwashed Bush dupes cant get around that fact which is why all these 9/11 discussions are mute. The Minnesota senator asked those questions to congress and was removed from office shortly after that.anytime people in government question the official version they get removed from office.why waste time with trolls like them when they cant get around these facts?

Translation: I got nothing.