NIST 9/11 Sussudio-science?- Truth deniers v Isaac Newton III

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
NIST 9/11 Sussudio-science?- Truth deniers v Isaac Newton III

continued from here

mmphosis

Gravity Made It Happen.  That's my vote for Isaac Newton.

Fidel

Ah but according to denier fizzics, there was no real need for planes if bombs were to have been placed at 250 strategic locations near massively massive steel inner core columns and outer beams overdesigned for a 2000% increase in live load at or around the 98th floor. The pros have razed steel frame buildings to the ground like this for years. What's all the fuss? And since when did team dubya begin lying to the public about anything? Come on!

al-Qa'bong

I can just picture what takes place at Truther conventions.  Some guy will go up to the podium, speak quasi-scientifically for a while, then start babbling about thermitegladiolaserbeams as a hunk of the sacred structural steel ignites behind him, casting an eerie glow over everyone, who then drop to the floor, shaking and quivering while shrieking about thermitegladiolaserbeams...which brings about the glorious moment when the Holy Hologram comes through the kitchen doors at the back of the hall and whisks the congregation off to the footprint of the Rapture, where they ascend the 110 storeys to whatever heaven they imagine is up there.

 

 

al-Qa'bong

Mmmm, the font is much nicer here...unless these letters are holo - nahhh.

Fidel

Oh not again? We took your baby jezus de bin gladio pamphlets four days ago, and he aint risen from boot hill still. Here's a clue: Don't leave the porch light on for either Jimmy Offa or jezus de 9/11!! Theyre both deed.

al-Qa'bong

jas wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Another oddity in these discussions is how the Truthees, while deriding others' ignorance of physics, seem troubled by the towers having collapsed straight down, as if the buildings should have tipped over sideways, or at least have fallen at an angle.

Buildings don't collapse straight down from a structural breach at the top. Never have; never will. It's this willful idiocy that insists that they can and should, even though they never have and never will, that becomes insufferable.

Indeed, and of course you're alluding to one of the greatest cover-ups in the history of science. We've all heard that famous tale of how Sir Isaac Newton came up with his theory of gravity, but THE TRUTH that has been suppressed is that the apple that hit Newton fell from the tree beside the one under which he was standing!

Fidel

They admit they were lied to constantly by the neocons. But 9/11? Why would the lying-liars lie to them about 9/11?

Why would megalomaniacal psychopaths lie about something so serious as 9/11?

I think it's because they can believe in their own minds that the war criminals would murder brown people on the other side of the world based on lie after lie about everything from "nurse Nayirah" fairy tales to WMD in Iraq. But would the assholes commit mass murder against upstanding white people in the trade towers that day and flying AAL?

Truth deniers can handle 99% of the war criminals lies. But when it comes to mass murder of 3000 western world citizens on 9/11 and most of them white people, the lights dim and brains are switched off. The gladio gang would never sacrifice American and Canadian citizens  for the sake of resource grabs on the other side of the world? Would they? Suddenly they become gullible.

siamdave

 

Hmmm - I've put out this challenge a few times, and have yet to see a taker, which doesn't seem too surprising - once again - all you people who passionately defend the Official Conspiracy Theory of 911, repeat after me: "You bet! It is perfectly clear that these two buildings are so compromised that they are on the verge of total failure. All that steel around the outside that looks so strong is really just a mirage - that and the 47 steel structural core columns are about to fall apart like a stack of toothpicks, and I have the True Physics As Brought To Us By The Great God NIST To Prove It!! Never mind what your eyes tell you - Believe in NIST Oh You Unbelievers!!I believe! I believe!! I BELIEVE!!!!" - C'mon. Just one of you??? (pic from my essay, 911 Thought Experiment - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/911-thoughtex.html )

 

long distance shot of WTC fires

- all sarcasm aside, the point is serious - you do not need advanced degrees in physics to tell you these buildings are NOT on the verge of 'total collapse', at least from any kind of natural forces. And while some of the OCTers like to accuse those of us who do not believe their little theory of 'finding comfort in conspiracy theories' or some such nonsense, it seems to me the exact opposite is the case - those who believe in the OCT are those who simply cannot face the fact that their government might not only be a little bit bad sometimes, but actually be thoroughly evil, so they adopt some obviously false belief that allows them to maintain this belief, rather than accept the evidence of their eyes and start asking some hard questions. Which would also explain the vehemence of some of the sarcasm and attacks against those of us who refuse to accept obvious nonsense, and continue pressing for some kind of real investigation into what happened that day.

HeywoodFloyd

And in related news, doctors are now treating patients by looking at photos of them.

Fidel

[url=Gladio">http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/News/112501/Worldandnation/Loopholes_le... visa express[/url] Sainte Petersburgh Times 2001

Quote:
"Keep the Saudis happy," Springmann said he was told, apparently because they are America's biggest supplier of crude oil.
He said he later learned that visas went to terrorists recruited by the CIA and bin Laden to train in the United States for the war against the then-Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

"There is a strong fellowship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia that sees through different eyes when it comes to Boeing, military installations and oil deals," added Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer who has represented Saudi defectors and terror suspects.

prisonernumberone prisonernumberone's picture

As we get on the same page let's refresh our memories about what one video record shows of the destruction of WTC 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q7vz3ZEfBw

Whatever is happening to this huge concrete and steel building I would not described it as a gravity collapse.

The point I am alluding to is that only through personally examining what occurred can one discern the enormity of the official  911 lie. Just like a doctor might examine an x-ray picture or an historian examine a person's writings or audio recordings.Wink

cheers

bc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxoi31dwhBU&feature=related

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I can just picture what takes place at Truther conventions...

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert of E=MC^2

The Pearl Harbor attack, JFK, and Challenger disaster were all incidents that caused federal investigations to begin the week after they happened. How long did it take for 9/11 victims' families to push and prod the war criminals in government for an investigation? 441 days later a slip-shod 9/11 investigation began. No one was held accountable, and several 9/11 Commission panelists later said they were lied to by federal agencies and that it was a coverup. They said they were lied to. Constantly.

siamdave

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

And in related news, doctors are now treating patients by looking at photos of them.

- photos have their use in medicine, but it would be a strange cop who didn't think photos could provide valuable evidence, either suggesting or discouraging certain lines of investigation. A cop who looked at a bullet riddled body but firmly defended his thesis that the patient died of a heart attack would find himself with some credibility problems, as people who maintain the WTC towers were so damaged by plane impact and "great raging fires' that their collapse was understandable have, at least to some of us, some credibility problems when such claims are made in the face of pictorial evidence such as this photo that the damage was much less than close-ups provided by the OCTers would lead the credulous tv-heads to believe.

Salsa

sismdave wrote:
Which would also explain the vehemence of some of the sarcasm and attacks against those of us

 

Hey...that happened yesterday, Truther prisonernumberone started a post with insults and complained about being insulted. Now you do sarcasm and complain about sarcasm. woot!! it's a new twoofer twend. Feed free to complain to the mods if you're feeling hard done by. It's disheartening isn't it? having every post you make being completely pwned by logic and reason leaving those only fallbacks truthers have, arguments from incredulity and solipsism.

 

Well along with the lies, edited videos, cherry picking, misdirection and creation of strawmen.

 

 

SHIPOOPI !!

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

 A cop who looked at a bullet riddled body but firmly defended his thesis that the patient died of a heart attack would find himself with some credibility problems...

 

But y'see, that's what the Truthites are doing. We sheeplike Joe Public types look at the bullet-riddled body and assume (shucks, we even saw the guy being shot on TV...and Youtube!)  the bullets killed the person, while the conspiracy theorists look at the bullet-riddled body and conclude the person was poisoned.

mmphosis

 

wtc-construction.jpg

 

siamdave

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

 A cop who looked at a bullet riddled body but firmly defended his thesis that the patient died of a heart attack would find himself with some credibility problems...

 

But y'see, that's what the Truthites are doing. We sheeplike Joe Public types look at the bullet-riddled body and assume (shucks, we even saw the guy being shot on TV...and Youtube!)  the bullets killed the person, while the conspiracy theorists look at the bullet-riddled body and conclude the person was poisoned.

--actually not, AQ - you sheeplike types look at what is very obviously a controlled demolition of some sort, but are told by whoever you take your 'ideas' from that whatever this was, it was NOT controlled demolition!!! - and proceed from there. Those of us with brains to think say, wow, that sure looked like a controlled demolition, and the idea that those little tiny fires way up at the top of those buildings caused them to collapse exactly like controlled demolitions, but were not controlled demolitions, is just to crazy to believe. C'mon - instead of moving the goalposts or trying to divert the "discussion" by name-calling and sarcasm, just say it out loud, Al - tell me that you have no problem at all looking at that pic and saying it is obvious those buildings were mortally wounded and on the verge of complete collapse. Just once. Salsa? Anybody got any balls here? Not a bunch of 'yeabut yeabut' - just, sure, I'm happy to say I believe those buildings in that picture were obviously so badly damaged that their complete collapse like a great pile of matchsticks was completely inevitable. I believe that, sure!

C'mon. Quit running. Stand uip tall and quit the diversions and tell us you believe that.

mmphosis

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

 A cop who looked at a bullet riddled body but firmly defended his thesis that the patient died of a heart attack would find himself with some credibility problems...

 

But y'see, that's what the Truthites are doing. We sheeplike Joe Public types look at the bullet-riddled body and assume (shucks, we even saw the guy being shot on TV...and Youtube!)  the bullets killed the person, while the conspiracy theorists look at the bullet-riddled body and conclude the person was poisoned.

Hey!  I am one of those sheeplike Joe Public types, at least I was.  I watched the video that the msm showed over and over again of two planes crashing into two towers and quickly cut to the part where two towers collapsed into their own footprints, no correct me on this:  imploded mostly into their own footprints.  The official conspiracy theorists report on this 441 days later to conclude that the implosion was caused by fire.

HeywoodFloyd

siamdave wrote:

..tell me that you have no problem at all looking at that pic and saying it is obvious those buildings were mortally wounded and on the verge of complete collapse.

 

It doesn't have to be obvious for it to be true, does it?

 

After all, this guy looks perfectly healthy, doesn't he?

 

HeywoodFloyd

mmphosis wrote:

where two towers collapsed ...mostly into their own footprints.  

Where do you think they should have collapsed?

mmphosis

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

mmphosis wrote:

where two towers collapsed ...mostly into their own footprints.  

Where do you think they should have collapsed?

where three towers collapsed? ... or imploded? 

where do I think the towers ended up?

  • mostly into their own footprints
  • some pieces appear to fall with a lot of dust following them away from the towers
  • as a heck of a lot of dust in the air, and into the lungs of people who were there
  • outter pieces of the towers into surrounding buildings, possibly even WTC7
  • on top of the hotel that was between the towers
  • soon after, to the dump
  • soon after, off to China as scrap

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:
We sheeplike Joe Public types look at the bullet-riddled body and assume (shucks, we even saw the guy being shot on TV...and Youtube!)  the bullets killed the person, while the conspiracy theorists look at the bullet-riddled body and conclude the person was poisoned.

I think it must be more like when sheeple change the light bulbs. After watching WTC collapse videos, they think it's safe to stick their fingers in the empty light socket. Because like it was with the free-falling upper floors of the towers racing to the ground unimpeded,  AC current, too, should always take the path of most resistance to ground at near the speed of light. baaahahaha

Sineed

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

mmphosis wrote:

where two towers collapsed ...mostly into their own footprints.  

Where do you think they should have collapsed?

Bears repeating - I guess all the rumours started when the towers didn't fall over like felled trees.

Apparently, 110-storey buildings don't usually collapse into their own footprints when planes fly into them.  After all, the buildings were built to withstand the impact of a plane.  Surely the architects even anticipated the impact of planes that didn't even exist yet - isn't that what they all do?

I hear the 2,700 ft-tall Burj Khalifa is constructed to withstand the impact of alien spaceships.

jas

al-Qa'bong wrote:
jas wrote:
Buildings don't collapse straight down from a structural breach at the top. Never have; never will. It's this willful idiocy that insists that they can and should, even though they never have and never will, that becomes insufferable.

Indeed, and of course you're alluding to one of the greatest cover-ups in the history of science. We've all heard that famous tale of how Sir Isaac Newton came up with his theory of gravity, but THE TRUTH that has been suppressed is that the apple that hit Newton fell from the tree beside the one under which he was standing!

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I suppose the apple also "accelerated" through a bin of other apples (disappearing them in the process) before it hit Newton on the head? Falling to the ground at the same time as another apple which dropped but fell through air alone? What does your cartoon physics tell you, al-Q? Never mind. I think I know....

...and then a passport floated down through all the debris, landing on top of all the pulverized apples...

Fidel

Sineed wrote:
Apparently, 110-storey buildings don't usually collapse into their own footprints when planes fly into them.  After all, the buildings were built to withstand the impact of a plane.

Sineed, the 767 isn't much bigger than a 707. And WTCs were designed to withstand hurricane winds. The floors were designed to withstand an increase in live loads of 2000%. One independent scientist has provided calculations for total force balance at the point of collapse initiation that only adds up to about a 600 percent increase. And according to one former research physicist for DARPA, even Dr Manuel Garcia's estimation doesn't add up given the visual clues evident in the collapse videos depicting obvious tilting of floors in the upper blocks during collapse.

What we've argued mainly here is everything that happened to the buildings after initiation of collapse. The planes certainly didn't destroy all of the massive steel structure below the levels of plane impacts. Gravity still had to work against the resistance of the 90 some-odd floors within the lower blocks of the buildings. The time elapsed between initiation of collapse and time zero are being questioned by the truth movement. The feds have had a most difficult time of things with reckoning collapse times with Newton's laws of gravity and motion. And William of Ockham would probably have suggested that the official government conspiracy tjheory requires several too many assumptions amounting to so many leaps of faith to be believable.

jas

Quote:
4. Massive Core Columns

NIST: "As stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads" [4]. "The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time-enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely" [10].

"Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles, Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up the core... The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes." "The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact" [11].

We totally agree that the WTC Towers included "massive" interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that the Towers were "hollow tubes" with the floors supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor asserted, "The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube..." [12].

The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns - and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.

From: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

mmphosis

Fidel wrote:

What we've argued mainly here is everything that happened to the buildings after initiation of collapse. The planes certainly didn't destroy all of the massive steel structure below the levels of plane impacts. Gravity still had to work against the resistance of the 90 some-odd floors within the lower blocks of the buildings. The time elapsed between initiation of collapse and time zero are being questioned by the truth movement. The feds have had a most difficult time of things with reckoning collapse times with Newton's laws of gravity and motion. And William of Ockham would probably have suggested that the official government conspiracy tjheory requires several too many assumptions amounting to so many leaps of faith to be believable.

 

So what happened before initiation of collapse?  

Where did the massive steel structure below the levels of plane impacts go?

mmphosis

jas wrote:

From: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.

Source: bentham-open.org

HeywoodFloyd

mmphosis wrote:
 

where do I think the towers ended up?

Ah. That wasn't what I asked. We all know where they ended up.

No, the question I asked was "where do you think they should have collapsed". You keep reiterating that they "collapsed into their own footprint" like it is an unexpected result. So......where do you think they should have collapsed?

Fidel

HeywoodFloyd wrote:
No, the question I asked was ...

And you still haven't answered MY question: Could a professional demolition crew have done a better job?

Because apparently they could have done it without cutter charges placed at all but one of 98 floors.

Just a bit of jet fool and some matches on the cheap.

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:
No, the question I asked was "where do you think they should have collapsed". You keep reiterating that they "collapsed into their own footprint" like it is an unexpected result. So......where do you think they should have collapsed?

I don't think they should have collapsed at all. Why would they?

With the plane impact and the fires, I would have expected them to simply stand and burn above the impact zone, like every other building in the world would do. I believe this is what the firefighters were expecting, too, which is why they rushed up the towers to put the fires out. I guess when they saw the blown-out lobbies and heard the explosions, however, they knew something else was going on.

Possibly, in the case of WTC 2, the section above the impact zone might have toppled, with the uneven damage that the plane impact created. Pretty simple scenario, either way. If we're just talking plane impact and small upper floor fires. 

Fidel
mmphosis

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

mmphosis wrote:
 

where do I think the towers ended up?

Ah. That wasn't what I asked. We all know where they ended up.

No, the question I asked was "where do you think they should have collapsed". You keep reiterating that they "collapsed into their own footprint" like it is an unexpected result. So......where do you think they should have collapsed?

Shit happened that shan't have.  Collapsed?  More like imploded, demolished, vanished, vapourized. I don't have a word for what happened to the towers.  But, to answer your question...

No collapse would have happened:  The towers would have remained standing.

jas

From the Griffin article:

 

Quote:

Reports from Hess and Jennings from Inside WTC 7: Besides ignoring these and other reports of explosions made by people outside Building 7, NIST distorted the testimony of two highly credible men who were inside: Michael Hess, who was New York City�s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority.

Immediately after the North Tower was struck that morning, both men followed the instruction that, whenever there was an emergency, they were to meet Major Giuliani at his Emergency Management Center on the 23rd floor of Building 7. The North Tower was struck at 8:46, so they would have arrived at about 9:00. They found, however, that everyone had left. Calling to find out what they should do, Jennings was told to get out of the building immediately. So, finding that the elevator would not work (the electricity had evidently been knocked out at 9:03 by the airplane strike on the South Tower), they started running down the stairs. But when they got to the 6th floor, there was a huge explosion, which blew the landing out from under them and blocked their path. They went back up to the 8th floor, broke a window, and signaled for help.

Firemen came to rescue them, Jennings said, but then ran away. Coming back after a while, the firemen again started to rescue them, but then ran away again. They had to run away the first time, Jennings explained, because of the collapse of the South Tower, which occurred at 9:59, and the second time because of the North Tower collapse, which occurred at 10:28. On that basis, Jennings told Dylan Avery in an interview in 2007, he knew that, when that big explosion occurred, �both buildings were still standing.� Finally, when the firemen returned after the second tower collapsed, Hess and Jennings were rescued.

This must have been sometime between 11:00 and 11:30, because at 11:57, Hess gave an on-the-street interview several blocks away. Jennings also gave an on-the-street interview. Both men reported that they had been trapped for some time � Hess specified �about an hour and a half.�

 

jas

Jennings Interview describing explosions in WTC7 occurring before collapses of WTC 1 and 2.

Fidel

Why did WTC buildings 3,4,5, and 6 not fall down completely? Those buildings suffered far, far more damage than WTC7, and yet it was WTC7 that fell down in a big hurry as if demolished by deliberate demolition. From vide tapes of that day, rescue workers and other key people seemed to know before it happened that WTC7 was going to come down. The official conspiracy theory report said there were raging fires in WTC7, but truthers are saying that wasn't the case and is obvious from videos that WTC7 fires were small and isolated.

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18344.htm]Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics[/url] By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles

Quote:
 On September 11th the whole world watched as jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center. These heinous crimes were labeled as acts of war. However, scientific principles show much more happened that day than we were told. The most striking feature of these World Trade Center collapses is that each came down within a few mere seconds of the time it would have taken a brick dropped from the buildings' tops to hit the ground. Through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Committee Studies our government told us that the damage from the planes hitting the buildings and the resulting fires caused them to collapse at near freefall speed.

What we were told is physically impossible without additional forces to bring the buildings down.

That's a powerful statement coming from an applied physicist. Do we believe people like Dr Grabbe or the whackos who've demonstrated in this and other threads that they don't know physics from filo pastry?

siamdave

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

siamdave wrote:

..tell me that you have no problem at all looking at that pic and saying it is obvious those buildings were mortally wounded and on the verge of complete collapse.

It doesn't have to be obvious for it to be true, does it?

- no it doesn't - but take a stab at explaining to me how those 75/90 floors can be on the verge of total global collapse and not showing any signs of it? If you told me the guy in the picture, for instance, died the next day of some debilitating disease like leprosy or something, I'd probably have some similar questions - pictures are evidence to the extent they tend to confirm or disporve a theory - not perhaps determining evidence, but nonetheless to be considered - and to say those two WTC towers were minutes away from total collapse, whilst the bottom 75/90 floors are showing absolutely no signs of distress, should raise big red flags to anybody capable of thinking for themselves when presented with the 'global collapse' OCT.

Fidel

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18344.htm]Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics[/url] By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles

Quote:
The evidence is mounting and accredited scholars are coming out every day questioning the NIST Studies. In recent weeks alone, former NIST scientist James Quintiere has declared that he no longer accepts NIST's work and has called for a new investigation. World-renowned scientist Lynn Margulis strongly rejected the NIST Studies, suggesting that "the glaringly erroneous official account of 911 be dismissed...".. These are some of the finest scientists in the world. Can the mainstream press catch on? Reporters and pundits selectively use science to support less controversial issues but is this an inconvenient science. The rapidly expanding huge concrete dust clouds from the towers, the very-quick appearance of multiple squibs on all 3 collapsing buildings, and the destruction of hundreds of autos for several blocks around the World Trade Center from these squibs, are some of the dramatic examples clearly pointing to explosions. Scientific methods imply these were the cause of our greatest destruction in the 21st century.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUuHIuWtoU]David Ray Griffin: 9/11 Commission Omissions: documents many of the omissions and distortions[/url] Youtube

 Will there be a NIST Scientists for 9/11 Truth group form next?

 

jas
Papal Bull

siamdave wrote:

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

siamdave wrote:

..tell me that you have no problem at all looking at that pic and saying it is obvious those buildings were mortally wounded and on the verge of complete collapse.

It doesn't have to be obvious for it to be true, does it?

whilst the bottom 75/90 floors are showing absolutely no signs of distress

 

Wait a second. YOU'RE PART OF THE NEO-CON CONSPIRACY. YOU, FIDEL, JAS. I knew it! You guys know all of this because you're plugged right into the Gladio power and just trying to throw us off with your bizarre ramblings and deflective two oldline party arguments! You were all al-CIA'duh plants on babble all along!

 

No wonder you have insider knowledge that there was thermite and that photos don't show any structural damage on the exterior of the building (except that gaping, flaming gouge) because you have all the thermal camera images and suppressed youtube videos! Could one of you fine people give me Rumsfeld's cell number? Kind of have a crush!

 

And to think, all of those accusations of myself and others being genocidal war criminals, when it was you three Harperites all along that orchestrated one of the greatest insider jobs ever! How could I have gotten it all so wrong?!

 

edited to fit the TWOOF

jas

Yes Papul Bull, even the late deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority was making shit up, right?

Meanwhile, um...where are your sources? Oh right, you don't have any.

jas

29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 (pdf)

Quote:
Björkman scoffs at Bažant’s mythical free-falling top block bringing 287 columns hammering down in perfect array on the 287 columns below. Steel bends and mashes in Björkman’s salty world, and “it is not certain that the hammer even hits the nail.” Real-life columns miss, lodge in horizontal structures, and punch holes in floors, creating energy-absorbing frictions, deformed steel, local failures, and “a soft collision (not impact!)” that tangles damaged floors in a shuffled array – and stops well short of total collapse.

jas
Papal Bull

 

jas wrote:

Yes Papul Bull, even the late deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority was making shit up, right?

Meanwhile, um...where are your sources? Oh right, you don't have any.

 

I don't need reliable sources! I spoke to this strange dark shadowy figure in a parking garage last night codenamed Hearsay. He passed me an unsubstantiated weblink that told me all I needed to smell, Agent 0406304068419484818 - if that is your real name.

 

SMOKING GUN PROOF THAT ILLUMANATI PLAN 9/11

 

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1753.cfm

 

Quote:
">http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1753.cfm