A truth is a crowning achievement? I could see that. I have been here a short time and I can search and find buildings that have collapsed due to fire. The differences in design come into play as to the totality of the collapse but finding buildings that have collapsed due to fire is rather simple.
My credibility has never been on trial yours.has. I have stated facts while you merely lie and deny. Once again produce some evidence that NIST was a cover up BTW who said office fires brought down any of the buildings on 911
It wasn't JUST 'office fires',now was it? your intellectual dishonesty in this matter speaks volumes.
And? That is just an argument from incredulity, probably based upon a misunderstanding of the scale. Of course the fires could and did. It is obvious. Yeah, so the meme goes. It's a pity that's all it is, because 9/11 truth hasn't been able to prove it. 9/11 truth brays on about 2,000 architects and engineers supporting their insane stories, but why haven't one of these supposed 'experts' ever produced a paper to disprove NIST? Easy, they can't. How many faculties come out in support of NIST in published papers? See below: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/
everyone getting kickbacks LOL Dont need to prove anything, the gub needs to so all the proving and they cant because there is no proof because its all made up! LOL
it was the super duper mega pooper invisible fires! Nothing can stand up to invisible fire! damn these 911 arguments are ridiculous, posers believe in invisible fire and think a fire the size of a bbq will bring down a steel building. Damn I wish! Costs couple mil to bring one down in nyc, I'd be rollin in so much doh Id be playin poker with buffet and gates..
awesome, lets see a steel building that has collapsed in its own footprint and flattened like the towers from 'FIRE'. I have been waiting a long time for this!
nano doesnt make it explosive, sure therm[x]te can explode. are you joking that you dont understand how molten steel can pour out over the side? for real? as you can see it pretty much looks like an explosion you seriously need to pay attnetion to my posts, I have posted this many times for the posers.
No sir that isn't what I said. 49 columns in the core every other floor or so would have to be cut. Do the math and explain why only the single flow. just the one single flow sir.... SO explain why only that single flow reached a window and no more. Why would I be joking? Apparently you are if you don't understand the question. Doesn't look like an explosion to me. Not only is the rebar still connected to itself the supposedly (according to you anyway) exploding device is still there. You might want to watch that again and again and try to figure out why the so called explosion didn't work.
Love how the claim goes from not a single steel framed building in history to now not one that fell into it's own footprint and flattened. There has never been a similar building on fire that I am aware of sir so there wont be another similar building that was on fire that collapsed. One steel framed building is not the same as every other steel framed building. Does that also mean that since no other bridge like "Galloping Gertie" has collapsed that that must have been done by the govt using explosives too?
Don't know if much or any steel was actually "melted" but it can be heated enough to lose strength pretty easily.
Wonderful Artie, superb! Now if you could name those buildings, perhaps where they were, perhaps when this happened, perhaps pictures or links to stories, then you might have a bit more credibility than Soupy.
On that we agree--it was very much more than office fires. Trouble is, NIST declared it to be office fires and gravitational collapse. It sounds like we might also agree that the NIST report is badly flawed to the point of being fraud?
Not hardly..In addition to not JUST fires,the buildings structure was fatally compromised by 120 tons of jet aircraft crashing into them at high speed..
So you did a fea? Would love to see your work since nist wont let us see theirs. they said they cant give us building safety requirements because it would jeopardize national security.
you are getting my arguments confused with someone elses again, please try to keep it on the subject if you wish to engage me. so then you admit you have nothing to base your opinion on?
you are asking me to speculate on something that there could be any number of answers to. I am only concerned with the evidence as seen. Do you understand radiant energy? yes that device was thrown together to show how ridiculous and unknowledgeable poser arguments truly are and its not made to the same specs as the commercial thermate cutters which self destruct.
The flow seen could be any number of things but apparently according to some it HAS to be evidence of thermite used to cut (at least) the core columns. If thermite was used to cut those columns AND somehow "flowed" out of that window then it stands to reason there would be more than the one "flow". A single "flow" is not evidence of thermite. Commercial thermate cutters? I would love to see some evidence of that. As I understand it they used shaped charges, among other explosives, not some thermite or thermate "cutters".
only for those who have no demolition knowledge since it wont affect fully encased radio controlled cutters. lol
well you see it becomes a real problem when you come to a gun fight and sprinkle flower pedals around as your ammunition. Commercial thermate cutters? I would love to see some evidence of that. You see there again, you never heard of thermate cutters, and expect me to teach you so you can come up to speed to make some kind of argument. I would tell you to simply look at the steel but it does no good when arguing with people who wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a column cut by a hack saw or a linear cutter.
