Another Nick Frisco abortion, commenting about Bill Maher

[LTS TRN 2]

Not hundreds of witnesses, babs, and NO videos, and NO human remains, and NO real evidence other than the few chunks of fuselage. And of course, a total Stand Down by the U.S. Air Force.

I notice you stay far away from the Building 7 mystery. Figures.

Yea, Scotty says "Hi" to all the fellow lock-step Rove Monkeys like yourself, but he's had enough of the putrid lies and smears. How 'bout you? Do you have a functioning conscience, or are you blotto on OxyContin like your scout leader?

[Bennish]

[Bennish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0US_MfL2-58

[The Seer]

Not hundreds of witnesses, babs, and NO videos, and NO human remains, and NO real evidence other than the few chunks of fuselage. And of course, a total Stand Down by the U.S. Air Force.

I notice you stay far away from the Building 7 mystery. Figures.

Yea, Scotty says "Hi" to all the fellow lock-step Rove Monkeys like yourself, but he's had enough of the putrid lies and smears. How 'bout you? Do you have a functioning conscience, or are you blotto on OxyContin like your scout leader?

Seriously, we believe you.

[dotdotdot]

No, the hole isn't too small.

That's what she said.

[Bennish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89coc88Hrs

[Moving Sale]

What Law of Physics are you referencing, counselor?

Newton’s First. The moving object out front should have clued you in.

I posted two videos earlier (which I note you ignored...).

I did not ignore them. I dismissed them. An Attorney should know the difference.

The first shows what happens when a plane smashes into reinforced concrete at 500 mph. It basically vaporizes.

The object did not vaporize. It passed thru three rings, therefore your video did not tend to make your argument better (In fact it makes mine better) hence it was not relevant (except to bolster my position) so I dismissed it as helpful to your case.

The Pentagon had windows and probably wasn't built to nuclear reactor specifications, but the Laws of Physics would apply nonetheless. The plane would mostly disintegrate, which it did.

But it didn’t, it went thru three rings. You can’t have it both ways. Either it disintegrated which would explain how the hole is so small or it didn’t which would explain how it made it thru three rings.

The other videos show that debris does not only go forward when an impact is made, it also goes backwards, which would explain why debris is found on the grass outside the Pentagon.

Debris from the building sure, but not from the object. In every scene in that vid the object in motion kept going (possibly thru three rings.)

Why don't you enlighten us on your special Law of Physics, and then tell us what happened on 9/11/2001.

It is special. In fact, it is Newton’s First Law.

You've got it all figured out. Go ahead and spit it out, buddy.

Go ahead and learn how to read what I have told you many many times.
~~~~~~~~

I guess the Illuminati got to Popular Mechanics too, huh?

"And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
I don’t know if they are Illuminati, but ‘probably’ is not science. They should be ashamed of themselves.

There are plenty of examples like that and very little science, but if you want to quote some science from that link I would be glad to discuss it with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~

I think Moving Sale's role was addressed years ago by Euroclone, thanks. He does a bang up job there.

He was talking about brain-dead lemmings like yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great, we already know that.

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report…. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan?

75’ is generous, but let’s go with that.

In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings…. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." link

Speculation. Not a lick of science anywhere. Newton’s First Law says a force has to act on the object to change its path or to stop it. Your link does not tell us how it was seared off. That is sooooo lazy.
~~~~~~~~~~

Says who?

According to JSCDogKiller, the 911 Commish. supra
~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0US_MfL2-58

A cartoon that is not even to scale? That is not science. How tall are those poles? How high of the ground is the wing? Where are the impact marks on the poles?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appeal to Ridicule

Your Fallacy has been noted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Smack aside, I truly hope that you are better in Court than this.

LTS TRN 2 is an Attorney? I guess I need to update my spreadsheet.
~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89coc88Hrs

So you think 88Braincells is full of shit when he tries to pimp his ‘disintegration’ theory?
Interesting.

[Moving Sale]

BTW Here is some C&Ped (and altered) Math in case none of you fucks has ever seen any. It relates to the speed of the WTC1&2's collapse:

The Law of Conservation of Momentum: the momentum before a collision is equal to the momentum after a collision.
M1 x V1 + M2 * V2 = (M1 + M2) x V3
Since V2 is not moving if it is the floor of a non-collapsing part of the building:
M1 x V1 = (M1 + M2) x V3
Solving for V3 we get:
V3 = (M1 / (M1 + M2)) x V1
With equal masses:
V3 = ½ x V1.
With an object 9 times heavier than the other:
V3 = M1 / (M1 + 9xM1) V1
V3 = 1/10 x V1
The final speed is one tenth of what it started out. Notice that what matters is not the mass or what it is made of but how much larger the second mass is than the first mass.
The inescapable truth of this means that when the upper floors hit the lower ones, that it could not have moved as fast as just moving through air as the NIST claims because the laws of nature *will not* permit it. This is why engineers such as my self can say the NIST assertions are just plain garbage.
Yes to do the exact momentum analysis is more complex and good estimations of what would happen have been done by Gordon Ross. If you really want to get into the detailed math you can at:

The original is 404 but here is another paper of his on the subject.

The principals of momentum are the same. He considers more factors such as how much each floors would resist before failing etc. In his paper he illustrates how the fall would stop after at most two floors--like one would expect with a car hitting a semi truck. The Truck doesn't simply move out of the way or disintegrate. Yeah you can do the detailed math to prove the obvious, but do we really need to?

[Moving Sale]

Appeal to Ridicule

Your Fallacy has been noted.

[Moving Sale]

The same point about the size of the whole at the Pentagon, if you claim something other than the plane hit the Pentagon, then say so.

Font size notwithstanding, that is not an argument, well at least not one that is logically sound. Something happened on 911. You say you know. Fine. Then answer a question or two about how your Conspiracy Theory is physically possible, or be honest enough to admit that you don’t know.

[Bennish]

I guess the Illuminati got to Popular Mechanics too, huh?
"And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

I don’t know if they are Illuminati, but ‘probably’ is not science. They should be ashamed of themselves.

There are plenty of examples like that and very little science, but if you want to quote some science from that link I would be glad to discuss it with you.

If you're not trolling as a profoundly retarded moron, there is no amount of evidence that can tear you from your warm tit of denial. The article is not a scientific study itself, it is the expert opinion of scientists who know more about the actual science behind 9-11 than your tinfoil hat sporting political operatives. If I put these experts on the stand and you put on the nimrods who run the conspiracy sites you've been reading, I would win. I want to see the credentials of the scientists who support your theory.

What is your theory, by the way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0US_MfL2-58

A cartoon that is not even to scale? That is not science. How tall are those poles? How high of the ground is the wing? Where are the impact marks on the poles?

Listen and listen closely you colossal waste of bandwidth; who gives a fuck how high the poles were? They faded into a live shot of each pole fucking laying there. You saw what, three or four street lights mangled on the Pentagon grounds? Start explaining why your imbeciles haven't released any footage of Rummy and Cheney dragging those streetlights onto the Pentagon grounds to stage those pictures. Get a grip - there is no way you can maintain your faulty belief system in the face of this evidence unless you are truly deprived of critical brain enzymes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89coc88Hrs

So you think 88Braincells is full of shit when he tries to pimp his ‘disintegration’ theory?
Interesting.[/quote]

So now do we have to spend a few more pages arguing about the definition of "disintegration?" You just admitted you saw the plane pieces, so what the hell are you still arguing about? Did he say "complete disintegration?" Just because several pieces remain does not mean a substantial portion of it did not disintegrate. You're grasping for straws. Are you going to stipulate that it was in fact a plane? Sounds like you already did.

[velocet]

Hey Velo - good to see you back.

I was just in DC Thurs and Friday (actually Manassas.

Flew into DCA Thurs night and had to go all the way up GW and back down 495 beacuse 66 is all HOV after 4:00PM?

How the hell do you deal with that shit out there?

Thanks man, backatcha.

The only thing I can say about 66 is that someone misnamed the route by leaving off a 6. Well, that and I avoid Virginia for the most part.

Why do you have Nick Frisco posts from six years ago?

Phibes

Why do you assume that I have them?





velocet

[Moving Sale]

I, as well as the vast majority...

By vast you mean what? 55%? 65%?

... of Americans, accept the version of the events as reported by the 9/11 Commission.

You claim something else happened; however, you have failed to articulate exactly what.

No YOU have failed to articulate how your preposterous Conspiracy Theory is even PHYSICALLY possible. I don't know what happened. That’s called being intellectually honest. You are just a lemming with no brain of your own.

You can pimp this 'stupid reverse burden of proof' fallacy all you want it only shows you can't back up your inane Conspiracy Theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you're not trolling as a profoundly retarded moron, there is no amount of evidence that can tear you from your warm tit of denial.

Who’s in De-nile?

The article is not a scientific study itself…

Then it has no value.

it is the expert opinion of scientists

Then they should show their work like kids do in 3rd grade Math class.

who know more about the actual science behind 9-11 than your tinfoil hat sporting political operatives.

Appeal to Ridicule? Your fallacy has been noted… again.

If I put these experts on the stand and you put on the nimrods who run the conspiracy sites you've been reading, I would win.

Says who? Who said I’ve been reading anything but scientific articles on the subject? Do you think before you post?

I want to see the credentials of the scientists who support your theory.

Google is your friend you stupid fucking tard.

What is your theory, by the way?

I think the “New Pearl Harbor Theory” has some merit.

Listen and listen closely you colossal waste of bandwidth; who gives a fuck how high the poles were?

Me. My query about it should have been your first clue, dumbass.

They faded into a live shot of each pole fucking laying there.

Which proves what?

You saw what, three or four street lights mangled on the Pentagon grounds?

It was Five. So you have no idea about the facts of the case and I am supposed to listen to a word you have to say?

Start explaining why your imbeciles haven't released any footage of Rummy and Cheney dragging those streetlights onto the Pentagon grounds to stage those pictures.

Excellent Stawman… for a stupid bleeding gash.

Get a grip - there is no way you can maintain your faulty belief system in the face of this evidence unless you are truly deprived of critical brain enzymes.

YOU’RE the one who believes in a Conspiracy Theory that isn’t even PHYSICALLY possible.

So now do we have to spend a few more pages arguing about the definition of "disintegration?"

I know what it means. It means the fuselage would not make it to the 3rd ring if it disintegrated… but if it did disintegrate that would explain the lack of wing damage on the outside of the pentagon. Too bad you are too stupid to get that AFTER I FUCKING JUST POSTED IT!

You just admitted you saw the plane pieces, so what the hell are you still arguing about?

The hole in the building being too small. Try and follow along you dumb cunt.

Did he say "complete disintegration?" Just because several pieces remain does not mean a substantial portion of it did not disintegrate. You're grasping for straws.

supra … AFTER I FUCKING JUST POSTED IT!

Are you going to stipulate that it was in fact a plane? Sounds like you already did.

Sounds like you can’t even read English.

[Moving Sale]

Otherwise, this concludes my comments in this thread.

After adding nothing you fold your tent. Typical.
~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

STFU you stupid fuck. You've never been right on ANYTHING. WMDs? You got that wrong. Plame? You got that wrong. Tilman? You got that wrong. Use of Oil? You got that wrong. Mission accomplished? You got that wrong. The quote you have in your sig? You got that wrong. Genetic Predisposition for Violence in Black's? You got that wrong. And now this. You got that wrong too.
"The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th."
That site says nothing about the size of the hole.

Now go fuck yourself you Racist Piece of Bush-Humping shit.

[Moving Sale]

Keep saying that like it's supposed to mean something, you stupid, braindead fuck.

It means you're too stupid to follow a simple conversation KKKcal.

Strawman

You know full well that I made no Strawman.

Where do ad hominems rate on your fallacy meter?

Low. Go fuck yourself you Racist fuck.

[Moving Sale]

Are you sure you want to go with the Kinetic Energy Theory to explain away the fact that V3 = ½ x V1?

Do you dispute that the South Tower fell in 10 seconds?

[Dr_Phibes]

Why do you assume that I have them?

velocet

Because otherwise you've commited them to memory and that's deeply weird?

[Ang]

I am not a fan of any type of conspiracy theory, be it 9/11 or any other. But the collapse of WTC building 7 makes no sense at all from the reported accounts, and the analyses on what and when and why. It is the one thing that makes me wonder about the whole deal.

[RadioFan]

If I'm not mistaken, the "Final," "official" government report on what happened to WTC 7 is due out "any day now."


MS, in 3 ....... 2 ..... 1 ...



Ang, and to think I used to RACK you and stuff. :wink:

There is no "mystery" here, folks.

WTC 7 was just across the street from a 110-story building that was struck by a fully-fuled passenger jetliner, with so much heat, from the resulting fire upon impact, it collapsed. And it took it well over 30 minutes to do so.

So what happened to all that heat, huh?

And metal debris, heated white hot, from all that jetfuel, eh?

You're going to tell me that all of that HEAT just disappeared?

Sin,

mini-mini-MS


Good god, dude. Next thing you know, Bennish will be posting pics of you in panties.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

And metal debris, heated white hot, from all that jetfuel, eh?

Do you know the temperature that burning jet fuel creates?

You'd be shocked to discover that it isn't anything near the temps needed to turn steel "white hot". Ever.

[jiminphilly]

And metal debris, heated white hot, from all that jetfuel, eh?

Do you know the temperature that burning jet fuel creates?

You'd be shocked to discover that it isn't anything near the temps needed to turn steel "white hot". Ever.

This should clear things up..

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

THE FIRE
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

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.2,3 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. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

[Moving Sale]

As soon as you demonstrate that you know anything at all about physics, we'll debate the point.

How can we debate something you don’t understand? As far as your hack goes… he can’t even get his significant figures correct. h= 3.79 not 3.7 and it doesn’t even = 3.79 Because 3.79 is an approximation, which should be represented as such…. Unless you are a hack.

And he uses Wierzbicki and Bažant to estimate E[sub]1[/sub]? And then he goes through all that that shit to find the relation between Ti and E[sub]1[/sub] to make his final determination when E[sub]1[/sub] is an estimation???

Perhaps you could refute the physicist's conclusions in the paper I linked to get things started.

Perhaps you could learn 11th Grade Science.

A brilliant physicist such as yourself should have no trouble demonstrating the mistakes in that hack's analysis.

You mean like how he forgot to calculate for v at Ground Level. Or forgot to calculate for s? You’re too stupid to even understand it.

What? Never been in a courtroom? Never had an accident re-constructionist or a Blood Spatter expert on the stand? What kind of hack are YOU? I bet you work in an Office. Ha! I Laughed!

You reference a general statement in a section of the 9-11 report that relates to emergency service response times, which says the South Tower fell in 10 seconds. You take this general statement and then attempt to twist it into some sort of scientific finding. Seems par for your course.

The report is full of shit as it relates to any technical matter? What fucking use is it then?

I have no idea exactly how long it took the South Tower to fully collapse.

Your hack does. Did you even skim your fucking link?

But based on what I see with my own eyes in the real time video of the collapse, I'd peg it somewhere around 15 seconds:

So you DIDN’T read it. You didn’t even skim to the bolded parts did you?

It is impossible to make that determination with any accuracy.

Tell that to your hack.

What we can see from the video and the still pictures taken at the time is that debris ejected from the side of the building during the collapse fell through the air at a substantially faster rate than the main portion of the building, which completely destroys your bullshit argument.

Good Gawd. Your Math is off by more than the distance between those pieces and the rest of the collapse. Remember {M1 X V1}+{M2 X V2} = M3 X V3 … and [h] is NOT 3.7 so V never =’s (8.5/2)Squared.

Anytime you learn more than how to C&P a link, get back to me.
~~~~~~~~~~

E ='s What?

Your ignorance has been noted.


How’s your little Conspiracy Theory workin’ out for ya? Feel safer?

[LTS TRN 2]

http://iamthewitness.com/Rudy_Get_Well_Soon_Card.html

So, M-sale, despite your one-man circle jerk on the physics attending controlled demolitions, the question remains: how can these world-class criminals, the Cheney gang et al, who have committed this astonishing New Pearl Harbor--and who are reaping the intended benefits (massive increase in military contracting, Halliburton making about $35 Billion so far)--be brought to their proper choking purple mask of twisted hatred within the coils of their respective Nuremberg nooses?

That's your question to ponder, and to pursue. Now get to work.

[LTS TRN 2]

GET TO WORK

("Sure, I should swing from a gallows...but everyone's asleep!")

[Salsashark]

So.

LTS + Moving Sale = Rosie?

Got it.

[RadioFan]

E ='s What?

Your ignorance has been noted.

By you, in this context? I laughed.

Idiot.

[jiminphilly]

So WTF are you saying? Other than the planes, what else was involved to bring down the building?

I think the insinuation is that there was a controlled demolition.. of course that would have required a great deal cutting of the columns on numerous floors which probably would have been noticed.


As for WTC 7- Read this article from a very well-known structural engineer in the A&E Industry-

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/20 ... -Nov07.pdf

[LTS TRN 2]

WW

On December 4, 1833, fifty-one people signed the following statement, issued in Palmyra, New York:

'We, the undersigned, having been acquainted with the Smith family for a number of years, while they resided near this place, have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them to be destitute of that moral character which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. They were particularly infamous for visionary projects, spent much of their time digging for money, which they pretended was laid in the earth; and to this day large excavations may be seen in the earth not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time in digging for hidden treasures.

'Joseph Smith senior, and his son Joseph, were in particular considered entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits. Martin Harris [one of the signatories to the statement concerning the plates] had acquired a considerable property, and in matters of business his word was considered good; but on moral and religious subjects he was perfectly visionary; sometimes advocating one sentiment, sometimes another....It was not supposed that any of them were possessed of sufficient character or influence to make any one believe their book or their sentiments; and we know not a single individual in this vicinity who puts the least confidence in their pretended revelations.'

[OCmike]

Unwar long-winded tards who bump their own threads in pursuit of more attention.

[Moving Sale]

So WTF are you saying? Other than the planes, what else was involved to bring down the building?

How the hell would I know, you fallacy posting fucko? … and I know 10 times more about it than you do.
~~~

By you, in this context? I laughed.

It wouldn't be so funny if you would have pulled your head out of your ass first.

Ok big shot. Lay some Math on me that shows my Math is wrong...if you can.
~~~

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/20 ... -Nov07.pdf

Dude it says "may" right in the title. And it 'may' have been more than just one column. Ever think of that?