Re: GIANT TRUCK SMASHES INTO PYLON, AND EXPLODES CAUSING FLIMSY HIGHWAY TO COLLAPSE (Droolers clai

[What Me Worry?]

"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W4yZh.1850$RX.1596@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> What Me Worry? wrote:
>
>> You see, if it had happened as you say, then the floors would have slid
>> down the giant central core (severing at the inner and outer connection
>> points) leaving the core standing . From the numerous videos of the
>> collapse, we see the entire structure shattering to dust and giant
>> neatly-severed steel columns being catapulted upward and outward
>> hundreds of yards, smashing into neighboring buildings. The 47 giant 4"
>> thick steel box columns and all of the beams and outer "sleeve" of
>> structural box columns all shatter and fall at the same rate. There was
>> nothing left of the core except a pile of neatly-severed 30 ft sections
>> of 22" wide 4" thick box columns. There is simply no way that your
>> theory can fit with the well-documented evidence.
>>
>> There is a theory that does fit the evidence, however...
>
> Yes. The steel floor trusses until they expanded, forcing the outer
> columns out and initiating the collapse. Once it happened, the energy of
> all those tons of concrete and steel, in motion, far exceeded their
> resting energy, so they plowed through the rest of the building, exploding
> it outwards. And the inner structure can be seen still standing as the
> floors and outer structure peel away. Exactly the opposite of a controlled
> demolition.

NIST won't go there. Their computer simulation doesn't include the bottom
60+ floors of the WTC towers, which were 100% intact at the time of the
collapse. The NIST report doesn't even attempt to explain the actual
collapse (as you have tried to do.) NIST doesn't know why the WTC towers
collapsed. They've rejected the thoroughly-discredited "pancake theory,"
which you appear to be espousing. Perhaps you didn't know it's out of vogue
among the "true believers."

 

[Phlip]

What Me Worry? wrote:

> NIST won't go there. Their computer simulation doesn't include the bottom
> 60+ floors of the WTC towers, which were 100% intact at the time of the
> collapse. The NIST report doesn't even attempt to explain the actual
> collapse (as you have tried to do.) NIST doesn't know why the WTC towers
> collapsed. They've rejected the thoroughly-discredited "pancake theory,"
> which you appear to be espousing. Perhaps you didn't know it's out of
> vogue among the "true believers."

Farbeit from me to request detailed citations for all that. The "pancake
theory" is the theory that the collapse initiated when one floor fell
through. I espoused the theory in the NIST Faq, the theory that the floor
trusses overheated and pushed out the outer support collumns.

Did you know that hot things often expand, even while still rigid, and long
before they melt?

And once the top of the building is moving, do you expect the lower 60
floors to somehow support it??

--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html

 

[What Me Worry?]

"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cJyZh.1856$RX.398@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> What Me Worry? wrote:
>
>> NIST won't go there. Their computer simulation doesn't include the
>> bottom 60+ floors of the WTC towers, which were 100% intact at the time
>> of the collapse. The NIST report doesn't even attempt to explain the
>> actual collapse (as you have tried to do.) NIST doesn't know why the WTC
>> towers collapsed. They've rejected the thoroughly-discredited "pancake
>> theory," which you appear to be espousing. Perhaps you didn't know it's
>> out of vogue among the "true believers."
>
> Farbeit from me to request detailed citations for all that. The "pancake
> theory" is the theory that the collapse initiated when one floor fell
> through. I espoused the theory in the NIST Faq, the theory that the floor
> trusses overheated and pushed out the outer support collumns.

That's where the story ends: at collapse initiation. NIST has no idea what
actually drove the rest of the collapse all the way to the ground at
free-fall speeds (adding only air resistance).

> Did you know that hot things often expand, even while still rigid, and
> long before they melt?

I'm sure there was plenty of expanding going on; but remember that the
structure was designed to withstand hurricane-force winds, and multiple
Boeing 707 hits without damage. One of the WTC towers had already withstood
a devastating fire some years before 9/11/01 (much larger and longer-lasting
than the 9/11 fires). Despite the total devastation of the interiors, there
was no structural damage at all . This is par for the course with steel
skyscrapers. Physics and structural engineering were not rewritten on
9/11/01.

> And once the top of the building is moving, do you expect the lower 60
> floors to somehow support it??

You really need to do more reading before you proceed. Like I said, the
"pancake theory" you're describing has been thorougly debunked and is no
longer "canon" among true believers in the OCT.

 

[What Me Worry?]

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177975311.332993.51580@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 2:42 am, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
>> Wow, that's amazing. I can't even get an insurance agent to look at my
>> car
>> for several days; but within minutes of the huge tanker truck crashing
>> into
>> the a support pylon and exploding violently, unidentified "experts"
>> <snicker> have given us a definitive structural engineering assessment of
>> the precise collapse modes (with technical jargon borrowed straight out
>> the
>> thoroughly discredited NIST report on the WTC demolitions). That's
>> amazing!
>> <chortle>
>>
>> When do the real engineers get to have a look at it? Or don't you
>> squealing
>> children believe in real engineers and real forensics? Naw - that would
>> mean discussing real facts, and boring stuff like that. It's better to
>> just
>> parrot what MSM feeds you and then giggle about it like idiot children.
>>
>> So did it crumble, or did it melt? And how does concrete melt, exactly?
>>
>> ROFL! Keep on drinkin' the koolaid. We'll do the serious work.
>>
>
> Steel does not crumble.

That's right - at least not from fire. It could be made to crumble at
extremely low temperatures.

> Concrete does not melt, yes.

Now we're getting somewhere.

> Steel will melt
> at
> higher temperatures, but at lower ones it will simply soften and sag.
> These
> are the _laws of physics_, OK?

Fine.

> But according to you, steel must not be
> able to weaken or fail under thermal load. If that is so, how do we
> manage
> to shape steel from raw ore in the first place? How did the Iron Age
> even
> start? Remember, before furnaces were hot enough to _cast_ iron (ie.
> melt it), they would be hot enough to _soften_ it and make it easy to
> hammer.

What is your point?

> The steel did not melt, nor did it crumble. The steel
> _softened_
> and the concrete crumbled (actually more _broke_ than crumbled.
> Concrete is incapable of flexing, remember

Incorrect. In fact, there are actually springs made of concrete. Some of
them are made to absorb shock for large buildings in an earthquake (they're
quite large). Pretty cool stuff.

> so once it's support is
> removed and it fails under it's own weight, it fractures. To crumble,
> something needs to become sewn with fractures (cracks). The
> WTC concrete was _crushed_ by the massive weight falling down on
> it (the kinetic load was too great for the material to take), as
> happens
> with _any_ catastrophic building collapse.).

That is a tidy theory, except that it doesn't match observed evidence. In
the WTC videos, we can clearly see the buildings exploding, the concrete
shattering in mid-air, before it even began moving downward. Gigantic
multi-ton sections of steel beams and columns were being blown upward and
outward hundreds of feet, smashing into nearby buildings. The concrete,
drywall and insulation was atomized in mid-air, boiling off of the
structures like a fountain, flying upward and outward, covering much of
Lower Manhattan in a thick, fine, flour-like concrete-gray dust.

There is absolutely no way that the "pancake theory" could have had these
clearly-observable collapse features.

Try again.

 

[What Me Worry?]

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177976020.685500.323060@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 12:39 pm, o5j...@netzero.com wrote:
>> > You really are a ****ing moron. I knew it as soon as you said that
>> > jet-A
>> > dosent burn in Air.
>>
>> > See ya you ****ing idiot.
>>
>> [chuckle]
>>
>> It never changes. Ignorant shills have no facts; so they resort to
>> name-calling.
>>
>
> FACTS have been presented in a message I just posted here,
> by the way. I agree with you that name-calling is a shitass
> argument, though.

What facts?

> What is so difficult to accept about the idea that the official
> story is true, that the hijacked planes were all that were
> necessary to blow away the towers?

Where should I begin? WTC7 for starters - wasn't hit by a plane, had only
minor fires (which appeared to be arson), and then in the afternoon of
9/11/01, it was demolished. It fell to the ground in a matter of seconds,
as fast as if you had dropped a baseball off the top of it. No structural
resistance to falling whatsoever. That is easily explained; but not with
the official theory.

The WTC Twin Towers were designed to withstand multiple hits from a 707 -
approximately the same size and weight as a 767 that actually hit them.
Also, the Twin Towers had already withstood a devastating fire some years
before 9/11, as well as a bombing in the basement that shook the building.
Yet neither of those events caused structural damage.

There's much more. Start here: http://911research.wtc7.net/

>> People wonder how Hitler did it. Well.. wonder no longer. Some just
>> would rather believe lies than face the truth.
>
> Do you mean that you deny the Holocaust?!

Of course not.

> I wouldn't go
> THAT far... Six million people DID die, you know.

Yeah, we know.

 

[Billary/2008]

"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:BN6dnWoyG9PdIKvbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@insightbb.com...
>
> "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1177975311.332993.51580@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 30, 2:42 am, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
>>> Wow, that's amazing. I can't even get an insurance agent to look at my
>>> car
>>> for several days; but within minutes of the huge tanker truck crashing
>>> into
>>> the a support pylon and exploding violently, unidentified "experts"
>>> <snicker> have given us a definitive structural engineering assessment
>>> of
>>> the precise collapse modes (with technical jargon borrowed straight out
>>> the
>>> thoroughly discredited NIST report on the WTC demolitions). That's
>>> amazing!
>>> <chortle>
>>>
>>> When do the real engineers get to have a look at it? Or don't you
>>> squealing
>>> children believe in real engineers and real forensics? Naw - that would
>>> mean discussing real facts, and boring stuff like that. It's better to
>>> just
>>> parrot what MSM feeds you and then giggle about it like idiot children.
>>>
>>> So did it crumble, or did it melt? And how does concrete melt,
>>> exactly?
>>>
>>> ROFL! Keep on drinkin' the koolaid. We'll do the serious work.
>>>
>>
>> Steel does not crumble.
>
> That's right - at least not from fire. It could be made to crumble at
> extremely low temperatures.
>
>> Concrete does not melt, yes.
>
> Now we're getting somewhere.
>
>> Steel will melt
>> at
>> higher temperatures, but at lower ones it will simply soften and sag.
>> These
>> are the _laws of physics_, OK?
>
> Fine.
>
>> But according to you, steel must not be
>> able to weaken or fail under thermal load. If that is so, how do we
>> manage
>> to shape steel from raw ore in the first place? How did the Iron Age
>> even
>> start? Remember, before furnaces were hot enough to _cast_ iron (ie.
>> melt it), they would be hot enough to _soften_ it and make it easy to
>> hammer.
>
> What is your point?
>
>> The steel did not melt, nor did it crumble. The steel
>> _softened_
>> and the concrete crumbled (actually more _broke_ than crumbled.
>> Concrete is incapable of flexing, remember
>
> Incorrect. In fact, there are actually springs made of concrete. Some
> of them are made to absorb shock for large buildings in an earthquake
> (they're quite large). Pretty cool stuff.
>
>> so once it's support is
>> removed and it fails under it's own weight, it fractures. To crumble,
>> something needs to become sewn with fractures (cracks). The
>> WTC concrete was _crushed_ by the massive weight falling down on
>> it (the kinetic load was too great for the material to take), as
>> happens
>> with _any_ catastrophic building collapse.).
>
> That is a tidy theory, except that it doesn't match observed evidence. In
> the WTC videos, we can clearly see the buildings exploding, the concrete
> shattering in mid-air, before it even began moving downward. Gigantic
> multi-ton sections of steel beams and columns were being blown upward and
> outward hundreds of feet, smashing into nearby buildings. The concrete,
> drywall and insulation was atomized in mid-air, boiling off of the
> structures like a fountain, flying upward and outward, covering much of
> Lower Manhattan in a thick, fine, flour-like concrete-gray dust.
>
> There is absolutely no way that the "pancake theory" could have had these
> clearly-observable collapse features.
>
> Try again.


You're a ****ing loon. No REPUTABLE engineering company or engineers
support anything you say. Including the company that designed the WTC.

 

[Al Queda Gore]

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <zSpZh.2602$zE.2368@trnddc03>,
Billary/2008 <F#%K_Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
>
>"Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net> wrote in message
>news:f14ecu02ot@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>
>> You wouldn't know serious engineering if it bit you in the ass.
>>
>> Same thing happened near me. Good old boy from up in NE TN left a local
>> tank farm hauling a 5,000 gallon tank full of gasoline. To get onto the
>> interstate, he has to take a long, curving entrance ramp that makes a
>> 270-degree turn under another ramp. He was going too fast, truck turned
>> over, burst into flame. Nothing was left of the truck except the axles.
>> Roadway above him was destroyed by the fire -- the intense heat caused the
>> concrete to "pop" and steel rebar to flex, droop, and lose all its
>> strength.
>>
>
>Same thing happened here in the Tampa Bay area. TWICE! Once in Tampa a
>couple of years ago. And a few months ago in St. Pete. Each time, a tanker
>overturned and burned the overpass above it. Each time the steel softened
>and collapsed the overpass. These WTC conspiracy nuts don't get it do they?
>
>
>


We had one happen in 1989 in NJ.


A similar fire happened in 1989. See FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES
DETOURS at this URL; http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-78_NJ/

FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS: In the early morning hours
of August 7, 1989, a multiple-alarm fire at an illegal garbage
dump underneath I-78 near Newark Airport caused heavy damage to
the freeway overpass. The source of the fire was a mound of
trash 25 feet tall and hundreds of yards long consisting of
scrap wood, plastics and paper. The heat of the fire buckled
the ten-inch concrete surface and melted steel support beams,
and the resulting weight shifts from the highway (which had
sagged nearly a foot)

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <BN6dnWoyG9PdIKvbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@insightbb.com>,
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
>"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1177975311.332993.51580@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 30, 2:42 am, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
>>> Wow, that's amazing. I can't even get an insurance agent to look at my
>>> car
>>> for several days; but within minutes of the huge tanker truck crashing
>>> into
>>> the a support pylon and exploding violently, unidentified "experts"
>>> <snicker> have given us a definitive structural engineering assessment of
>>> the precise collapse modes (with technical jargon borrowed straight out
>>> the
>>> thoroughly discredited NIST report on the WTC demolitions). That's
>>> amazing!
>>> <chortle>
>>>
>>> When do the real engineers get to have a look at it? Or don't you
>>> squealing
>>> children believe in real engineers and real forensics? Naw - that would
>>> mean discussing real facts, and boring stuff like that. It's better to
>>> just
>>> parrot what MSM feeds you and then giggle about it like idiot children.
>>>
>>> So did it crumble, or did it melt? And how does concrete melt, exactly?
>>>
>>> ROFL! Keep on drinkin' the koolaid. We'll do the serious work.
>>>
>>
>> Steel does not crumble.
>
>That's right - at least not from fire. It could be made to crumble at
>extremely low temperatures.
>
>> Concrete does not melt, yes.
>
>Now we're getting somewhere.
>
>> Steel will melt
>> at
>> higher temperatures, but at lower ones it will simply soften and sag.
>> These
>> are the _laws of physics_, OK?
>
>Fine.
>
>> But according to you, steel must not be
>> able to weaken or fail under thermal load. If that is so, how do we
>> manage
>> to shape steel from raw ore in the first place? How did the Iron Age
>> even
>> start? Remember, before furnaces were hot enough to _cast_ iron (ie.
>> melt it), they would be hot enough to _soften_ it and make it easy to
>> hammer.
>
>What is your point?
>
>> The steel did not melt, nor did it crumble. The steel
>> _softened_
>> and the concrete crumbled (actually more _broke_ than crumbled.
>> Concrete is incapable of flexing, remember
>
>Incorrect. In fact, there are actually springs made of concrete. Some of
>them are made to absorb shock for large buildings in an earthquake (they're
>quite large). Pretty cool stuff.
>
>> so once it's support is
>> removed and it fails under it's own weight, it fractures. To crumble,
>> something needs to become sewn with fractures (cracks). The
>> WTC concrete was _crushed_ by the massive weight falling down on
>> it (the kinetic load was too great for the material to take), as
>> happens
>> with _any_ catastrophic building collapse.).
>
>That is a tidy theory, except that it doesn't match observed evidence. In
>the WTC videos, we can clearly see the buildings exploding, the concrete
>shattering in mid-air, before it even began moving downward. Gigantic
>multi-ton sections of steel beams and columns were being blown upward and

"shattering in mid-air"
"multi-ton sections of steel beams ... blown upward"

I bet you can't actually point me to video that fits those two
descriptions. Give be a minute mark on any video longer than 15
seconds.







--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <1177957079.285531.87290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<o5jive@netzero.com> wrote:
>> The concrete flat surface is held up with multiple Steel I beams . They
>> are visible twisted and distorted in these pictures.http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070430/D8OQN9G00.html
>
>
>1) The fuel in those trucks was not Jet-A. Jet-A is designed to not
>burn when exposed to the atmosphere.


Gaaawd you are clueless.

Nothing "burns when exposed to the atmosphere". Some fuel has a
higher ignition point, either for safety or for some othe rdesign
issue.

What is your point, anyway?. SF and WTC both had gas fires.


>2) Buildings are not made of asphault materials
>
>3) For the bridge: Only a small section fell, and even then it is only
>bent. It is not completely collapsed, like WTC.
>


If those bridge spans had 10,000 tons of upper floors on them they
would have bent and fallen just like WTC did.

Lots of other bridge bendings are being found.


A similar fire happened in 1989. See FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES
DETOURS at this URL; http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-78_NJ/

FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS: In the early morning hours
of August 7, 1989, a multiple-alarm fire at an illegal garbage
dump underneath I-78 near Newark Airport caused heavy damage to
the freeway overpass. The source of the fire was a mound of
trash 25 feet tall and hundreds of yards long consisting of
scrap wood, plastics and paper. The heat of the fire buckled
the ten-inch concrete surface and melted steel support beams,
and the resulting weight shifts from the highway (which had
sagged nearly a foot)

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <wO-dnYPMWqpbXavbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@insightbb.com>,
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
>"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1177976020.685500.323060@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 30, 12:39 pm, o5j...@netzero.com wrote:
>>> > You really are a ****ing moron. I knew it as soon as you said that
>>> > jet-A
>>> > dosent burn in Air.
>>>
>>> > See ya you ****ing idiot.
>>>
>>> [chuckle]
>>>
>>> It never changes. Ignorant shills have no facts; so they resort to
>>> name-calling.
>>>
>>
>> FACTS have been presented in a message I just posted here,
>> by the way. I agree with you that name-calling is a shitass
>> argument, though.
>
>What facts?
>
>> What is so difficult to accept about the idea that the official
>> story is true, that the hijacked planes were all that were
>> necessary to blow away the towers?
>

>
>The WTC Twin Towers were designed to withstand multiple hits from a 707 -
>approximately the same size and weight as a 767 that actually hit them.
>Also, the Twin Towers had already withstood a devastating fire some years
>before 9/11, as well as a bombing in the basement that shook the building.



The 767, gassed up and flying at 500MHP had about 6 times the impact
energy of the 707 in the original design, on approach speeds and low
on gas.

The 1975 (?) fire was bad, but it wasn't accompanied by the impact of
a 300,000 pound airplane carrying 10,000 gallons of gas. That kind of
made a difference.

Loon.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <1177959188.686040.169130@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<o5jive@netzero.com> wrote:
>> You really are a ****ing moron. I knew it as soon as you said that jet-A
>> dosent burn in Air.
>
>I know facts don't matter to you.. But for someone who might be
>impressionable with your factiods..
>


>Jet-A: "Maximum burning temperature:, 980 =B0C (1796 =B0F) "
>[http://www.google.com/search?q=3Djet-a+burn+temperature]


Steel loses half it's strength at 980C. I think it starts to lose
some at 400F.





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <1177960172.740818.209510@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<o5jive@netzero.com> wrote:
>> "Jet-A is designed to not
>> burn when exposed to the atmosphere."
>>
>> You ****ing twit. You said that Jet-A was designed to NOT burn in Air.
>> That's a bold faced LIE. And factually INCORRECT. You and the other WTC
>> conspiracy nuts are nothing but a bunch of ****ing loons. You'll go to your
>> grave mumbling and foaming at the mouth, something about how "Bush did it".
>
>[laughter]
>
>Once again, your "facts" are non-facts (factoids).
>
>[http://www.google.com/search?q=jet-a+burn+additive]
>[http://www.google.com/search?q=jet-a+fire+safety]
>
>
>


"Jet-A is designed to not
>> burn when exposed to the atmosphere."

This is idiotic.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <1177963554.757100.20810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<o5jive@netzero.com> wrote:
>> ROFLMAO ! Tell that to the 500 Dead 747 crash victims at Tenerife in 1977
>> .What cracker jack Box did you get your Petrolium Engineering degree from?http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-tenerife-lg-2-numpage-6.html
>
>Once again, apples and oranges.. I mean, really... 1977.. are you
>kidding? Is this a joke?
>
>Are you really comparing the 1977 jet fuel standards to today's Jet-A
>standards? It's really hard to tell when you guys are being sarcastic
>and not.

Are you really comparing the 1977 jet fuel standards to today's
Jet-A standards? It's really hard to tell when you guys are being
sarcastic and not.

Hey, expert; Tell us what the difference, if any, between civilain jet
fuel circa 1977 and Jet-A.

Tell us in your own words. Don't give us a google search or an
off-topic web page.






--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <1177964424.766451.140850@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<o5jive@netzero.com> wrote:
>> What Jet a standards of Today . Cite for us where it wont burn in teh Air.
>> Heres a picture of the Concorde fire before the crash and after.
>> You are the most stupile pile of maggot brained INbred to ever drag your
>> knuckles on the earth.http://www.concordesst.com/accident.../media/images/40629000/jpg/_40629715_ap_conco...
>>
>> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://image.guardian.co.uk/sy...
>
>You can read the details for yourself instead of posting your non-
>facts..
>
>[http://www.google.com/search?q=jet-a+jet+fuel]
>


Oh. A google search string. A sign of true ignorance.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

 

[Kevin Cunningham]

"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
newsNudnSEls42SMajbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
> Wow, that's amazing. I can't even get an insurance agent to look at my
> car for several days; but within minutes of the huge tanker truck crashing
> into the a support pylon and exploding violently, unidentified "experts"
> <snicker> have given us a definitive structural engineering assessment of
> the precise collapse modes (with technical jargon borrowed straight out
> the thoroughly discredited NIST report on the WTC demolitions). That's
> amazing! <chortle>
>
Since the NIST is one of the most respected engineering and technology
groups in the world how are they discredited?

 

[Bush Vetoes Terrorist Democrats Ai]

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f18avb$ev6$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <1177960172.740818.209510@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> <o5jive@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> "Jet-A is designed to not
>>> burn when exposed to the atmosphere."
>>>
>>> You ****ing twit. You said that Jet-A was designed to NOT burn in Air.
>>> That's a bold faced LIE. And factually INCORRECT. You and the other
>>> WTC
>>> conspiracy nuts are nothing but a bunch of ****ing loons. You'll go to
>>> your
>>> grave mumbling and foaming at the mouth, something about how "Bush did
>>> it".
>>
>>[laughter]
>>
>>Once again, your "facts" are non-facts (factoids).
>>
>>[http://www.google.com/search?q=jet-a+burn+additive]
>>[http://www.google.com/search?q=jet-a+fire+safety]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "Jet-A is designed to not
> >> burn when exposed to the atmosphere."
>
> This is idiotic.
>
>========================

Dont blame him. His moher used a coat hanget abortion method and removed
most of his brain, but he survived.

 

[What Me Worry?]

"Billary/2008" <F#%K_Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in message
news:IbIZh.3084$zE.647@trnddc03...
>
> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
> news:BN6dnWoyG9PdIKvbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1177975311.332993.51580@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 30, 2:42 am, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
>>>> Wow, that's amazing. I can't even get an insurance agent to look at my
>>>> car
>>>> for several days; but within minutes of the huge tanker truck crashing
>>>> into
>>>> the a support pylon and exploding violently, unidentified "experts"
>>>> <snicker> have given us a definitive structural engineering assessment
>>>> of
>>>> the precise collapse modes (with technical jargon borrowed straight out
>>>> the
>>>> thoroughly discredited NIST report on the WTC demolitions). That's
>>>> amazing!
>>>> <chortle>
>>>>
>>>> When do the real engineers get to have a look at it? Or don't you
>>>> squealing
>>>> children believe in real engineers and real forensics? Naw - that
>>>> would
>>>> mean discussing real facts, and boring stuff like that. It's better to
>>>> just
>>>> parrot what MSM feeds you and then giggle about it like idiot children.
>>>>
>>>> So did it crumble, or did it melt? And how does concrete melt,
>>>> exactly?
>>>>
>>>> ROFL! Keep on drinkin' the koolaid. We'll do the serious work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Steel does not crumble.
>>
>> That's right - at least not from fire. It could be made to crumble at
>> extremely low temperatures.
>>
>>> Concrete does not melt, yes.
>>
>> Now we're getting somewhere.
>>
>>> Steel will melt
>>> at
>>> higher temperatures, but at lower ones it will simply soften and sag.
>>> These
>>> are the _laws of physics_, OK?
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>>> But according to you, steel must not be
>>> able to weaken or fail under thermal load. If that is so, how do we
>>> manage
>>> to shape steel from raw ore in the first place? How did the Iron Age
>>> even
>>> start? Remember, before furnaces were hot enough to _cast_ iron (ie.
>>> melt it), they would be hot enough to _soften_ it and make it easy to
>>> hammer.
>>
>> What is your point?
>>
>>> The steel did not melt, nor did it crumble. The steel
>>> _softened_
>>> and the concrete crumbled (actually more _broke_ than crumbled.
>>> Concrete is incapable of flexing, remember
>>
>> Incorrect. In fact, there are actually springs made of concrete. Some
>> of them are made to absorb shock for large buildings in an earthquake
>> (they're quite large). Pretty cool stuff.
>>
>>> so once it's support is
>>> removed and it fails under it's own weight, it fractures. To crumble,
>>> something needs to become sewn with fractures (cracks). The
>>> WTC concrete was _crushed_ by the massive weight falling down on
>>> it (the kinetic load was too great for the material to take), as
>>> happens
>>> with _any_ catastrophic building collapse.).
>>
>> That is a tidy theory, except that it doesn't match observed evidence.
>> In the WTC videos, we can clearly see the buildings exploding, the
>> concrete shattering in mid-air, before it even began moving downward.
>> Gigantic multi-ton sections of steel beams and columns were being blown
>> upward and outward hundreds of feet, smashing into nearby buildings. The
>> concrete, drywall and insulation was atomized in mid-air, boiling off of
>> the structures like a fountain, flying upward and outward, covering much
>> of Lower Manhattan in a thick, fine, flour-like concrete-gray dust.
>>
>> There is absolutely no way that the "pancake theory" could have had these
>> clearly-observable collapse features.
>>
>> Try again.
>
>
> You're a ****ing loon.

Which part of my statement are you refuting? And on what grounds?