9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-07-2015 03:12 PM)natachan Wrote:  Just checking in while at work.

Popcorn

I'm not as familiar with WTC7 but I had heard it suffered from fire and debris damage. This seems credible, but I can do some research into the exact nature of the damage and heat.

And yes, fire can bring down steel frame buildings. It's rare, but it can happen.

It could have something with the fact the building was evacuated early on and left to burn for 7-9 hours while rescue efforts were made on main buildings.

Popcorn


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
16-07-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-07-2015 11:47 PM)WOPR Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 11:15 PM)pablo Wrote:  That's cute, you demanding answers and all.

Cute? You moron. I've repeatedly said I was interested in reading the conclusions of others (proponents and opponents alike) before I post mine. Anyone, including me, who voices a conclusion (like the alleged Air Farce firefighter guy did) should be prepared to provide some sort of empirical support for it. Not an unreasonable expectation.... unless of course one is an Orangutan.

I did, dumbfuck. Buildings collapse from fire all the time. Do you need help using google, or have you at least managed to learn that much in your miserable time here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(12-07-2015 07:48 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 07:43 AM)BnW Wrote:  So, checking into this thread for the first time in a few days and what do I find? A genuine WTC7 conspiracy theorist. You may be dumb, but you'll have to work hard to be WTC7 conspiracy theory dumb. It's like a whole new level of special.

HEY WOPR - tell us the one about how the BBC reported the collapse before it happened. I love that one. Drooling

I liked the one Rosie O'donnel (pretty sure it was her) had -- that "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel..............."

Dumbass.

It doesn't NEED to melt.

Guess she never heard of annealing.

... or weakening by thermal expansion. As metal heats up, it expands (like any other material except for water transitioning from ice). As the metal expands, it has lower density, which results in lower strength. And unlike what the resident Dumbfuck has to say about this phenomenon, it is not a new discovery ... to people with an education.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
17-07-2015, 03:49 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
WOPR wrote......a lot of crap.

Can anyone do that then? State a load of incoherent rubbish pretending to be a reasonable argument even though it has little to do with reality.

I want a go. Big Grin

The planes had little effect as they were flying when they crashed into the WTC.
As they were flying it means they were weightless, It they had weight they would be plummeting rather than flying. This is a fact.
Something that is weightless is the same as nothing. (fact)
The fuel (which gained weight when it stopped moving) burnt in the twin towers. This can not have caused any collapse as the heated air from the fire will have risen and held up the buildings.(fact). This is how hot air balloons work so this must be true.
Clearly some other agency caused the collapse. The CSA (Child support Agency) is an agency. They are an English agency known to terrorise absent fathers by forcing them to pay outstanding maintenance payments. As I used the word 'terrorise' they must be terrorists and therefore not without blame in this.(fact)
Nothing flew into WTC7, which is the same as two weightless aircraft (fact).
As nothing does not have a fuel load there was no fire in WTC7. therefore no hot air to hold it up. therefore collapse.

Checkmate truth-tellers.

As I have stated this is all fact I am not required supply any citations or evidence at all. In other words, It's a fact so I don't need to prove it. (Can't remember where that came from, it is a quote from someone that I read years ago.)
So don't ask.

The rest of my whisky is beckoning. I had better go and see what it requires.

What do you mean Life is short. It's the longest thing you're going to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like stevec's post
18-07-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-07-2015 05:48 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're right, Psikey and WOPR, you're right. I was an employee of the government at the time the towers fell. After your righteous bullshit in this thread I can no longer hold back the truth, the truth that the government is telling you lies about the twin towers. They were not brought down by the airplanes hitting them, what the fuck

Care to point out where I said anything about the government besides what might have been written or not written in the NIST NCSTAR1 report?

Since the NIST report does not specify the quantity of concrete in the towers it does present a problem for computing the Potential Energy. Where are you suggesting the energy came from to destroy the lower 85 stories of the north tower if not the Potential Energy?

Please try to come up with more interesting sarcasm in the future. That was extremely feeble.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 01:21 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(18-07-2015 12:51 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 05:48 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're right, Psikey and WOPR, you're right. I was an employee of the government at the time the towers fell. After your righteous bullshit in this thread I can no longer hold back the truth, the truth that the government is telling you lies about the twin towers. They were not brought down by the airplanes hitting them, what the fuck

Care to point out where I said anything about the government besides what might have been written or not written in the NIST NCSTAR1 report?

Since the NIST report does not specify the quantity of concrete in the towers it does present a problem for computing the Potential Energy. Where are you suggesting the energy came from to destroy the lower 85 stories of the north tower if not the Potential Energy?

Please try to come up with more interesting sarcasm in the future. That was extremely feeble.

psik

One last time: the concrete slabs that constituted the floors were suspended from the frame. They were were not capable of supporting the weight of multiple slabs that fell on them and were torn from their supports.

It really is that simple.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-07-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(18-07-2015 12:51 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 05:48 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're right, Psikey and WOPR, you're right. I was an employee of the government at the time the towers fell. After your righteous bullshit in this thread I can no longer hold back the truth, the truth that the government is telling you lies about the twin towers. They were not brought down by the airplanes hitting them, what the fuck

Care to point out where I said anything about the government besides what might have been written or not written in the NIST NCSTAR1 report?

Since the NIST report does not specify the quantity of concrete in the towers it does present a problem for computing the Potential Energy. Where are you suggesting the energy came from to destroy the lower 85 stories of the north tower if not the Potential Energy?

Please try to come up with more interesting sarcasm in the future. That was extremely feeble.

psik

Rolleyes Your bullshit is what's feeble mate.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 03:26 PM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2015 04:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(18-07-2015 12:51 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Please try to come up with more interesting sarcasm in the future. That was extremely feeble.

Yeah, ... . You are an idiot. Doesn't matter how loud you holler "I am not an idiot!" You are still a fucking idiot.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
19-07-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(18-07-2015 03:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-07-2015 12:51 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Please try to come up with more interesting sarcasm in the future. That was extremely feeble.

Yeah, ... . You are an idiot. Doesn't matter how loud you holler "I am not an idiot!" You are still a fucking idiot.

YAWN

Yeah, I am so impressed by people who can't think of the obvious question of the "center of mass" of the tilted top of the south tower. Why didn't it fall down the side?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 04:24 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(18-07-2015 01:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-07-2015 12:51 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Care to point out where I said anything about the government besides what might have been written or not written in the NIST NCSTAR1 report?

Since the NIST report does not specify the quantity of concrete in the towers it does present a problem for computing the Potential Energy. Where are you suggesting the energy came from to destroy the lower 85 stories of the north tower if not the Potential Energy?

Please try to come up with more interesting sarcasm in the future. That was extremely feeble.

psik

One last time: the concrete slabs that constituted the floors were suspended from the frame. They were were not capable of supporting the weight of multiple slabs that fell on them and were torn from their supports.

It really is that simple.

Yeah, and no one ever talks about how many connections there were between the core and perimeter and the floors. How could they give simultaneously for the floor to fall and remain horizontal? But what would happen if it tilted? It would squeeze the core. How much friction would that cause? Another question that the brilliant collapse believers never raise.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: