9/11

33:34
like a stack of records.

 

Your the one that made it up in the first place

 

Oooh, another picture of super strong steel

Ooooh, that steel looks so strong, just look at it thelma, doesnt it look strong

 

Opoh, youtube is out again, maybe the CIA painted them with secret vegemite

Edit: no, phew its back

Anyway, now we can add C 130 to the list, storch thinks UA 175 was a C 130

 

At least he doesn't think the world trade center pancaked into rubble due to a fire.

 

You forgot to make a point.

 

Um, no. You said that I quoted from the NIST's rejected computer model concerning temperature and floor truss sagging. So I asked you to bring me the segment from the Final Report where they say that they made a mistake concerning the temperature required to cause the floor truss to sag. Do you have it?

 

Actually, it was the personnel aboard a FDNY fire boat who said it was a large bomber-style aircraft, not me. And it was a New York firefighter who said it was big black plane. Other witnesses said it was it was a military plane and not an airliner. I don't make the news, I just report it. But maybe we should listen to you because after all, they were there, and you weren't.

 

None of you are fooling anyone, just parroting "near freefall into its own footprint" over and over to each other from a bunch of youtube videos.

"Sheeple" just follow what the government tells them and the illuminati, but then you all just do the same thing you accuse these sheeple of, stare at the youtube videos in a daze start to chant "near freefall into its own foorprint"



400 C? Thats the real conspiracy.

...and this:



But its not a very exciting conspiracy. The conspiracy of ego

 

And yet he thought it was a military plane twice the size that makes a totally different sound...well for those first couple of minutes

 

You wouldnt have chopped up little half paragraphs here and there, pasted them together like that so they sort of sound like they support your crazy claims..... If you actually believed those crazy claims

And its not just now to try cover up 17 yrs of being a sheeple

Near freefall into it's own footprint
Near freefall into it's own footprint
Near freefall into it's own footprint
All in all your just another brick in the wall

 

You said: Oh, you were quoting that from the modelling section that got rejected anyway.

I said: Bring me the segment from the Final Report where they say that they made a mistake concerning the temperature required to cause the floor truss to sag. Do you have that, or not?

Here's something from the NIST Report for you to think about:

“The tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page xliv, para3)

“Finding 7: All four tests demonstrated that the floor assemblies were capable of sagging without failure. The unrestrained test, which had two 0.875 in. bolts fastening the main truss to the truss seats, did not sag sufficiently to bear on the bolts.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para4)

“Finding 8: All four test assemblies supported their full design load under standard fire conditions for two hours without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5)

 

I haven't said that the Towers fell into their own footprint. You're becoming excited again, and just spitting out accusations. You seem kind of angry, which probably stems from me exposing your ignorance concerning the photo of the WTC core; the one you thought was of something from the 1930s, which showed everyone that you had been discussing the details of something when you didn't even know what it looked like. I guess I'd be angry, too . . . but with myself.

And the only video having to do with near freefall is the one below. And all I've used it for was to show the near freefall of the upper block for the first 360 feet of drop. Remember? Not even a jolt as it collided with the intact structure below. But then again, the damage to the core was just speculation by the NIST. However, the NIST did come clean concerning the level of heat that the core area was subjected to.

Let's hear what they have to say about that :

The core space contained relatively little combustible mass. (NCSTAR 1-5 p49 para7)

The fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible. (NCSTAR 1-5 p51 para2)

So, how is it that you've been duped into believing the NIST when they say that if it weren't for the fire, the Tower would not have collapsed, even though they contradicted themselves by stating the above?

 

Wow, so lame, more chopping out parts

 

Really? Because these statements:

The core space contained relatively little combustible mass. (NCSTAR 1-5 p49 para7)

The fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible. (NCSTAR 1-5 p51 para2)

are totally unambiguous. You couldn't be taken out of context if you tried. However, if you believe that they've been taken out of context and couldn't possible mean exactly what they say, then put them into proper context and show how the statements don't mean exactly what they say. Do you think you can do that? Because I don't think you can.

 

And this one again, seriously what is wrong with you?

360 ft, thats the top of the building down to the 82nd floor, thats 10-12 floors through your intact core structure.....


....and now we can add "damage to the core was just speculation by NIST"

Even though you are admitting the top of the building went straight through 10-12 stories of that core like a cheap 3 day old curry

 

Did yinz hear they want the Saudis investigated over the loss/death of Two journalist.. Imagine that.. lmao.

 

It's not my intact core structure. No one denies that the structure below the impact zone was intact; even the NIST acknowledges that. However, the NIST neglected to explain how the upper structure passed through the intact structure below at virtual freefall speed from the very beginning of collapse. In fact, they admit that their Report does not include anything concerning the collapse after collapse initiation.

Here:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

Another fact is that they admit that only 6 to 8 of 47 core columns, and 33 of 240 perimeter columns were compromised, and that the extent of the fires beyond several meters into the Tower are unknown. Thus, their estimation that the core and perimeter columns suddenly gave way because of fire was simply an unsubstantiated conjecture.

And their conjecture is contradicted by their own findings that:

"The core space contained relatively little combustible mass." (NCSTAR 1-5 p49 para7)

"The fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible." (NCSTAR 1-5 p51 para2)

You claimed that I had chopped up parts of the Report to come up with these quotes from the NIST. I told you that these quotes are totally unambiguous, and that they couldn't be taken out of context if you tried. I also told you that if you believe that they've been taken out of context and couldn't possible mean exactly what they say, to put them into proper context and show how the statements don't mean exactly what they say. Still waiting for your response to that request.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

According to the NIST:

A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 96/150)

Upon reading this, you accused me of intentionally quoting sections from of a rejected computer model. So I asked you to bring me the segment from the Final Report where they say that they made a mistake concerning the temperature required to cause the floor truss to sag. Still waiting for your response to that request.

I also showed you this:

“The tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page xliv, para3)

“Finding 7: All four tests demonstrated that the floor assemblies were capable of sagging without failure. The unrestrained test, which had two 0.875 in. bolts fastening the main truss to the truss seats, did not sag sufficiently to bear on the bolts.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para4)

“Finding 8: All four test assemblies supported their full design load under standard fire conditions for two hours without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5)

And after reading these, you again accused me of chopping up parts of the Report. Presumably you believe I've taken them out of context. So now I'm going to ask you to explain for everyone just how these statements from the NIST don't mean what they say because they've been taken out of context. Is this going to be yet another instance where I'll be waiting indefinitely for your response?

 

Yes dude, there is a reason for that, 90th through to 110th floors, once those give way, 20 floors of crap starts to fall through the rest of the building, 80 million kilograms. Why the rest of the building cant handle that. 95% of the population doesnt need that spelled out to them. You say you dont keep parroting virtual/near freefall and yet there it is again.

How fast do you think the collapse should have been?

After the initial collapse in the top section; at what height, around which floor do you think the collapse should have stopped. You seem to think at some level of the building whats below should have stopped whats falling down above it. And I will actually get you to say it out loud, actually type it out for everyone to see

Another fact? Here we are YET again, you trying to imply what they list as the damage straight after the aircraft impact being the same for the next 100 minutes

They couldnt be taken out of context if I tried?. You get caught out trying to chop out paragraphs in relation to a rejected computer model somehow trying to make out its a lie or contradiction in regards to the temperature of heated floor trusses. And now gives us quotes about the core like somehow that has anything to do with the fuel heating the floor trusses and somehow thats supposed to be a contradiction. This is a totally new level of ridiculousness

And here we are YET again, you taking parts of the report in relation to a rejected computer model claiming its some kind of mistake. Of course there is no section where they say they made a mistake, they say they rejected the computer model

Oh for fucks sake. So from a section where they test what would happen if the fire proofing had stayed on you chop up paragraphs to try make out the steel in the actual buidling where the fireproofing was knocked off couldnt have sagged and somehow they are contradicting themselves.

Totally sad, desperate and pathetic

Absolutely ridiculous

 

And why the hell did you even post this picture?

Assuming its even from the wtc, and no I am not going to bother to check

In what universe do you think anyone is going to think just because that middle join is intact sort of, even though every angle coming out of it is twisted as fuck, that that is somehow going to prove steel frames cant collapse?

Seriously what-the-fuck?