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

[Guest Kevin Cunningham]

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

news: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>

>

Since the NIST is one of the most respected engineering and technology

groups in the world how are they discredited?

[Guest 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 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.

>

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

 

Dont blame him. His moher used a coat hanget abortion method and removed

most of his brain, but he survived.

[Guest 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 fucking loon.

 

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