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

May 1, 2007

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmaiI.com> wrote in message

news:463686aa$0$31823$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...

>

> "David Moffitt" <moffitcl@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> news:K5vZh.10309$3P3.826@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>

>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmaiI.com> wrote in message

>> news:46365625$0$31792$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...

>>>

>>> <o5jive@netzero.com> wrote in message

>>> news:1177963554.757100.20810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> 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.

>>> =========================

>>>

>>> Watch this Jet A not catch fire when the B 52 Crashes

>>>

>>

>> %%%% A B-52 is fueled with JP4.

>>

> ====================

>

> So this fireball trailing the COncorde is not Jet fuel either, its just

> Air France shooting off roman candles from its plane in celebration of

> Bastile day right?

>

> http://www.concordesst.com/accident/pictures/flames1.jpg

>

These idiots have nothing to say. This like clubbing seals. It's

embarrassing already.

May 1, 2007

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1177975898.254892.160170@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, o5j...@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.

>>

>

> Then it could not burn at all. Atmosphere is used in the turbines as

> an oxidizer. The heat and sparks of impact would have been more

> than enough to ignite the fuel. If the fuel did not ignite, then what

> the

> heck is that big fire burning there in the first place? Did you see

> the

> fireball from the impact? What other flammable material caused that?

> And remember, the jet fuel is not what did in the buildings -- it

> burned

> off way too fast. What did them in was the dozens of desks, chairs,

> papers, all the drywall, flooring, etc. The fire can be compared to

> starting a bonfire with gasoline. The gasoline is the jet fuel, the

> logs, the stuff in the building. The gasoline burns off fast, but the

> heat generated is more than enough to ignite the logs.

>

>> 2) Buildings are not made of asphault materials

>>

>

> No. But neither was the bridge. The asphalt is just a road topping,

> not

> a structural material.

>

>> 3) For the bridge: Only a small section fell, and even then it is only

>> bent. It is not completely collapsed, like WTC.

>>

>

> That's right. That's because it is not a tower (see below).

>

>> To compare the bridge to WTC is ignorance beyond belief. If what you

>> say is true, the entire span of the bridge should've collapsed

>> completely from a much lesser fire.

>>

>

> No, because the rest of the bridge (freeway) still had intact

> structure.

> The same argument does not apply to the WTC towers, though, since

> when the damaged structure failed, it caused a _huge weight_ (the

> floors above it) to smash onto the rest of the structure below. The

> resulting _kinetic impact_ smashed the floors. You don't think 400,000

> TONS of stuff dropping onto a floor is going to do anything??? If

> there were "floors" above the bridge, built on it, they would have

> collapsed into where the truck hit.

>

Don't expect a rational reply. These leftist loons are too far gone to

believe anything other than the alternate reality that was created for them

by their left wing nut puppet masters.

May 1, 2007

In article <1177975399.672098.170760@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>

mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> On Apr 30, 4:09 am, mike532 <mike...@alltel.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 30, 5:53 am, "Joe S." <non...@nosuch.net> wrote:

> >

> > > "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in messagenews:pNudnSEls42SMajbnZ2dnUVZ_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>

> >

> > > > 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.

> >

> > > 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.

> >

> > i don't think it causes the re bar to melt but it does weaken the

> > concrete for sure

>

> He didn't say it melted. He said it "flexed", "drooped", and "lost all

> it's

> strength".

Even if the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel was weakened, how you do explain both towers falling at near free fall

speed in the path of greatest resistance?

May 1, 2007

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message

news:62736066ab60cf5545dd4d938ad2bdbb@dizum.com...

> In article <1177975399.672098.170760@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>

> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>

>> On Apr 30, 4:09 am, mike532 <mike...@alltel.net> wrote:

>> > On Apr 30, 5:53 am, "Joe S." <non...@nosuch.net> wrote:

>> >

>> > > "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in

>> > > messagenews:pNudnSEls42SMajbnZ2dnUVZ_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>

>> >

>> > > > 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.

>> >

>> > > 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.

>> >

>> > i don't think it causes the re bar to melt but it does weaken the

>> > concrete for sure

>>

>> He didn't say it melted. He said it "flexed", "drooped", and "lost all

>> it's

>> strength".

>

> Even if the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel was weakened, how you do explain both

> towers falling at near free fall

> speed in the path of greatest resistance?

========================

Its called Gravity . Stay in school and your 1 st grade teacher will explain

it to you someday.

May 1, 2007

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message

news:62736066ab60cf5545dd4d938ad2bdbb@dizum.com...

>

> Even if the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel was weakened, how you do explain both

> towers falling at near free fall

> speed in the path of greatest resistance?

>

The buildings were created with an exoskeleton. There was very little rigid

internal structure. It's not unlike collapsing an accordion. Hollow on the

inside, rigid on the outside. All of the walls buckled out and away from

the floors above it...hence the pancake effect. Man, you WTC conspiracy

theorists sure are some loony fucking people. For example you can't explain

how in a building populated with THOUSANDS of elevator operators,

maintenance staff, SECURITY staff and residents. Other people had unlimited

time and resources to plant explosives and NO ONE noticed ANYTHING

suspicious. Hmmmm.....

May 1, 2007

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmaiI.com> wrote in message

news:463686aa$0$31823$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...

>

> "David Moffitt" <moffitcl@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> news:K5vZh.10309$3P3.826@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>

>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmaiI.com> wrote in message

>> news:46365625$0$31792$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...

>>>

>>> <o5jive@netzero.com> wrote in message

>>> news:1177963554.757100.20810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> 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.

>>> =========================

>>>

>>> Watch this Jet A not catch fire when the B 52 Crashes

>>>

>>

>> %%%% A B-52 is fueled with JP4.

>>

> ====================

>

> So this fireball trailing the COncorde is not Jet fuel either, its just

> Air France shooting off roman candles from its plane in celebration of

> Bastile day right?

>

> http://www.concordesst.com/accident/pictures/flames1.jpg

%%%% Jet fuel burns when vaporized. Crashing a 737 into a building

vaporizes the fuel.

Remember

May 1, 2007

Biff Limabaugh wrote:

> "Billary/2008" <F#%K_Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in message

> news:6nuZh.3016$zE.1423@trnddc03...

>

>>"Biff Limabaugh" <BillL...@lycos.com> wrote in message

>>news:k0uZh.2545$dy2.2331@trndny01...

>>

>>>"Billary/2008" <F#%K_Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in

>>>message

>>>news:KqtZh.23055$Cx1.21689@trnddc01...

>>>

>>>>"Biff Limabaugh" <BillL...@lycos.com> wrote in message

>>>>news:WgtZh.3398$%f7.1241@trndny03...

>>>>

>>>>>"Billary/2008" <F#%K_Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in

>>>>>message

>>>>>news:zSpZh.2602$zE.2368@trnddc03...

>>>>>

>>>>>>"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?

>>>>>

>>>>>It's Floriduh idiot, they still build huts of straw.

>>>>>

>>>>Biffy! You're home! How was your day sweatheart? After I got my son

>>>>off

>>>>to school, I took a nap...until about 10Am. Then the pool guy came buy

>>>

>>>and

>>>

>>>>did some repairs. Then I went out to Best Buy and purchased a new DVD

>>>>writer w/Lightscribe. In between I watched my investments soar thanks

>

> to

>

>>>>the Bush tax cuts. (I sold my Citigroup...made about $13K). So how

>

> your

>

>>>>day honey?

>>>

>>>And which out of the 30 some citigroups did you sell? Take your time and

>>>study it so you can pretend you know what your talking about. Make sure

>>>you

>>>pick the correct one so you don't look stupid.

>>>

>>>>

>>You fucking moron. There is only one "Citigroup" Ticker Symbol "C".

>>http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/

>>

>>Are you trying to challenge me in my area of expertise? Please say it

>

> ain't

>

>>so Biffy!

>>

>>I have three words for you Biffy..."bring it on". (Actually I'm sorry I

>>sold, it went up more after I sold it, nonetheless one should never kick

>>oneself for making money!).

>

> You are definately one dumb mother fucker and a pretender.

>

> DOW symbols are no less than three letters. Occasionally you'll get an a

> shorter one. Very rare. There is no symbol "C" in the market. You have been

> exposed as a complete fraud. You know absolutely nothing about the market.

> LMAO. You're gonna have to do better than going to there website and skim

> over it when you lie and someone exposes you. Dumbshit.

Go to http://www.nyse.com or http://www.nasdaq.com (or etrade or wallstjournal,

etc) and then click on Symbol Lookup and enter: C

Tell us what the result was.

Hope this helps!

May 1, 2007

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1177975898.254892.160170@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, o5j...@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.

>>

>

> Then it could not burn at all. Atmosphere is used in the turbines as

> an oxidizer. The heat and sparks of impact would have been more

> than enough to ignite the fuel. If the fuel did not ignite, then what

> the

> heck is that big fire burning there in the first place? Did you see

> the

> fireball from the impact? What other flammable material caused that?

> And remember, the jet fuel is not what did in the buildings -- it

> burned

> off way too fast. What did them in was the dozens of desks, chairs,

> papers, all the drywall, flooring, etc. The fire can be compared to

> starting a bonfire with gasoline. The gasoline is the jet fuel, the

> logs, the stuff in the building. The gasoline burns off fast, but the

> heat generated is more than enough to ignite the logs.

>

>> 2) Buildings are not made of asphault materials

>>

>

> No. But neither was the bridge. The asphalt is just a road topping,

> not

> a structural material.

>

>> 3) For the bridge: Only a small section fell, and even then it is only

>> bent. It is not completely collapsed, like WTC.

>>

>

> That's right. That's because it is not a tower (see below).

>

>> To compare the bridge to WTC is ignorance beyond belief. If what you

>> say is true, the entire span of the bridge should've collapsed

>> completely from a much lesser fire.

>>

>

> No, because the rest of the bridge (freeway) still had intact

> structure.

> The same argument does not apply to the WTC towers, though, since

> when the damaged structure failed, it caused a _huge weight_ (the

> floors above it) to smash onto the rest of the structure below. The

> resulting _kinetic impact_ smashed the floors. You don't think 400,000

> TONS of stuff dropping onto a floor is going to do anything??? If

> there were "floors" above the bridge, built on it, they would have

> collapsed into where the truck hit.

The "pancake theory" - which you are describing - has been thoroughly

discredited and rejected. NIST did not base their "collapse initiation"

report on the "pancake theory," for example.

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...

May 1, 2007

In article <N7wZh.870$J54.525@trnddc04>

"Billary/2008" <F#%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:

>

> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message

> news:62736066ab60cf5545dd4d938ad2bdbb@dizum.com...

>

> >

> > Even if the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel was weakened, how you do explain both

> > towers falling at near free fall

> > speed in the path of greatest resistance?

> >

>

> The buildings were created with an exoskeleton. There was very little rigid

> internal structure. It's not unlike collapsing an accordion. Hollow on the

> inside, rigid on the outside. All of the walls buckled out and away from

> the floors above it...hence the pancake effect. Man, you WTC conspiracy

> theorists sure are some loony fucking people. For example you can't explain

> how in a building populated with THOUSANDS of elevator operators,

> maintenance staff, SECURITY staff and residents. Other people had unlimited

> time and resources to plant explosives and NO ONE noticed ANYTHING

> suspicious. Hmmmm.....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html

http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-02/articles/10292-1.html

"Marvin P. Bush, the president

May 1, 2007

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.

--

Phlip

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

May 1, 2007

"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."

May 1, 2007

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

May 1, 2007

"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.

May 1, 2007

"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.

May 1, 2007

"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 fucking moron. I knew it as soon as you said that

>> > jet-A

>> > dosent burn in Air.

>>

>> > See ya you fucking 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.

May 1, 2007

"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 fucking loon. No REPUTABLE engineering company or engineers

support anything you say. Including the company that designed the WTC.

May 1, 2007

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

May 1, 2007

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

May 1, 2007

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

May 1, 2007

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

May 1, 2007

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 fucking moron. I knew it as soon as you said that

>>> > jet-A

>>> > dosent burn in Air.

>>>

>>> > See ya you fucking 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

May 1, 2007

In article <1177959188.686040.169130@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

<o5jive@netzero.com> wrote:

>> You really are a fucking 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

May 1, 2007

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 fucking 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 fucking 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

May 1, 2007

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

May 1, 2007

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/pictures/a1.jpghttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/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

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Guest Billary/2008

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Billary/2008

Guest Nomen Nescio

Guest Al Queda Gore

Guest Billary/2008

Guest David Moffitt

Guest whofan

Guest What Me Worry?

Guest Nomen Nescio

Guest Phlip

Guest What Me Worry?

Guest Phlip

Guest What Me Worry?

Guest What Me Worry?

Guest What Me Worry?

Guest Billary/2008

Guest Al Queda Gore

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Guest Al Dykes

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support