I think the findings are deeper than that, and what you suggest has been taken into consideration already.
What of melted steel in the basements, and round pellets of steel found in the dust debris?
this is it then i'm back to my work for tomorrow. There is so much that occurred inside the building that day that I have no idea how to even address those issues. It's not like hitting your thumb with a hammer and being able to figure out why your thumb hurts. There are so many what if's that can never be answered. The steel could have melted and behaved like a liquid and settled at the lower point, or the point that could hold it and in re: to round pellets of steel found in dust debris i have no idea. I'm sure you can find all sorts of strange things that happen when a plane flies into a building...the first strange thing to me would be thinking, wow there's a plane in the building.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I'm sure you can find all sorts of strange things that happen when a plane flies into a building...the first strange thing to me would be thinking, wow there's a plane in the building.
alex jones almost had me convinced it was a missle painted to look like a plane. but im no dummie.
All were saying is a proper investigation is due...
You mean like NIST, FEMA, or the 9/11 commission? Oh that's right, anything conducted by the U.S. government can't be trusted. So who do you propose conducts the investigation? As I previously stated, virtually no one in the mainstream media even wastes their time on these theories, so who do you suppose funds the investigation? Would you give your own money towards it? Millions were spent on these investigations, I don't know what more you want.
They found thermite on the steel. How exactly?
Incendiary bombs have been around for near a century now.
You mean like NIST, FEMA, or the 9/11 commission? Oh that's right, anything conducted by the U.S. government can't be trusted. So who do you propose conducts the investigation? As I previously stated, virtually no one in the mainstream media even wastes their time on these theories, so who do you suppose funds the investigation? Would you give your own money towards it? Millions were spent on these investigations, I don't know what more you want.
Incendiary bombs have been around for near a century now.
Good points. Although, to give up on logic and fact (or at least better questions) to breach the American conscience via the mainstream media is to give up entirely.
alex jones almost had me convinced it was a missle painted to look like a plane. but im no dummie.
Oh, that Alex Jones...he's such a kidder. I heard he even has revival meetings where people say...nay, they shout!, "Alex Jones is an american patriot, Courage is the hallmark of patriotism, and Alex Jones is the light that cuts through the darkness of cowardice"
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Oh, that Alex Jones...he's such a kidder. I heard he even has revival meetings where people say...nay, they shout!, "Alex Jones is an american patriot, Courage is the hallmark of patriotism, and Alex Jones is the light that cuts through the darkness of cowardice"
Given my propensity to be an asshole to smartasses, that was pretty courageous.
Interesting Information:
NIST has huge problems with explaining the anomalous 'collapse' of WTC 7.
NIST issued its final reports on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 in September 2005 after quietly "decoupling" the WTC7 probe from its investigation, (citing "staffing difficulties").
NIST said its WTC7 draft report was scheduled for release in October 2005, with a final report ready in December 2005.
However, that deadline was not met and in January 2006 NIST sought bids for research into the WTC7 collapse, with ARA awarded a contract on March 31, 2006.
Previously, NIST awarded a contract to Ramon Gilsanz and his New York engineering firm to do computer simulations of the WTC7 collapse. Dropped from the NIST website was the report titled "Structural Analysis of the response of World Trade Center 7 to debris damage and fire" (denoted NCSTAR 1-6F) by Gilsanz and nine others.
No explanation was given, though presumably this report was to have been used as 'evidence' supporting the NIST theory.
A 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, report on WTC7 co-authored by Gilsanz said the idea that fire triggered WTC7's collapse had "low probability."
Also omitted was "Analysis of Sept. 11, 2001, seismogram data" by W. Kim. Won-Young Kim of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory had previously done analyses of 9/11 seismographic data.
The government's stance on the collapse of the 47-floor WTC7 has raised eyebrows of experts, including researchers working with Gilsanz on a FEMA report, and, more recently, a Brigham Young University physics professor.
Some have attributed World Trade Center belches of smoke to dust expelled as floors crashed downward onto other floors. However, the basic gravity equation (y = 1/2gt2) proves that in two-tenths of a second a floor could have dropped no more than eight inches. A six-foot fall takes at least six-tenths of a second.
The NIST has reported that no steel debris was recovered from WTC7 and so no forensic analysis of the steel was possible.
In response to Jones and others, the NIST has inserted a note in its reports saying it had found no evidence of building destruction by missiles, bombs or controlled demolition. However, the agency cites no supporting data to show what work was done to preclude these possibilities.
Such a note is found in a report titled "Part IIC -- WTC 7 collapse," which contains a working hypothesis of fire-induced collapse, a series of graphics and photos and sketchy ideas about what might have happened. It contains no data on the sequential puffs of smoke.
Though dated April 2005, the report was not available during last year's public comment period for the twin towers report.
At 5:20 p.m., some seven hours after WTC1 fell, WTC7 collapsed almost straight down, indicating collapse must have begun on a lower floor, federal probers have said.
In a March 2005 Popular Mechanics article, "9/11: debunking the myths," lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder is quoted as saying that new evidence indicated that WTC7 showed severe structural damage following the tower collapses and that this weakening, abetted by a longterm fire, was the agency's working hypothesis.
Some 10 lower stories, or about 25 percent of the building vertically, was "scooped out," he is reported to have said. (The previous FEMA report also cited such damage, but did not regard it as compelling.)
Yet an NIST report (NCSTAR 1-3), says the NIST made no effort to check high-strain or impact properties of the type of steel used in WTC7 because "WTC7 did not suffer any high strain rate events."
In the magazine, Sunder said that an oddball design implied that failure of even one column on a lower floor might trigger collapse and suggested that a fuel-oil-fed fire contributed critical weakening.
However, an NIST report (NCSTAR 1-1J), found that the standard safeguards for the building's several fuel-oil systems would likely have blocked a longterm fuel-oil-fed fire, an idea first mentioned by FEMA probers.
The most likely source of leaking fuel would have been the Salomon Brothers system, NCSTAR 1-1J says, with probers citing two possibilities: a fuel spill from the 250-gallon "day tank" on the fifth floor or fuel continually pumped up from an underground tank, but they suggest that failsafes should have worked.
FEMA probers have said 250 gallons couldn't yield enough heat to inflict critical damage.
NIST-contracted probers Raymond A. Grill and Duane A. Johnson say it is barely conceivable that an electrical malfunction caused pumps to keep bringing up fuel from a 6,000-gallon tank buried underground. But they are puzzled as to the source of the electricity. Power to the building would have been shut off the morning of Sept. 11, though the building's emergency generators are powered by fuel oil.
The electrical schematics for the fuel system are missing, along with building maintenance records that might have yielded clues to the electrical system.
In FEMA's May 2002 report on the World Trade Center collapses, investigators wrote: "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis" for a fire-fed building collapse "has only a low probability of occurrence." They demanded further inquiry into how key supports could have given way.
Now we ALL know that NIST has 'decoupled' the WTC 7 report from their 'final report, and has since publicly called for subcontractor HELP to 'explain' what they obviously CAN NOT.
Can you guess WHO was awarded this subcontract ??? Do you know ??? How deep does your 'research' go ???
Well, guess who was awarded the 'subcontract'???
answer:
Defense Contractor Aids a Stalled 9/11 Probe:
"A major defense contractor has come to the aid of a stalled federal probe of the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, which housed Defense Department and CIA offices, after a previous WTC 7 study was quietly killed by the government.
The contract to Applied Research Associates Inc., of Albuquerque, N.M., supersedes a contract to the New York engineering firm of Gilsanz Murray Steficek, whose study of the WTC7 collapse never reached the public. Ramon Gilsanz had co-authored a 2002 federal report that expressed strong doubts about WTC7's collapse.
ARA was awarded a contract by the National Institutes of Technology and Standards, or NIST, to detect the initial cause of collapse and to come up with a computer simulation of the crash.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
this is it then i'm back to my work for tomorrow. There is so much that occurred inside the building that day that I have no idea how to even address those issues. It's not like hitting your thumb with a hammer and being able to figure out why your thumb hurts. There are so many what if's that can never be answered. The steel could have melted and behaved like a liquid and settled at the lower point, or the point that could hold it and in re: to round pellets of steel found in dust debris i have no idea. I'm sure you can find all sorts of strange things that happen when a plane flies into a building...the first strange thing to me would be thinking, wow there's a plane in the building.
Precipitated steel pellets found in the debris. Melted pools of steel in the basements.
What do you make of it? Anything? Nothing?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Oh, that Alex Jones...he's such a kidder. I heard he even has revival meetings where people say...nay, they shout!, "Alex Jones is an american patriot, Courage is the hallmark of patriotism, and Alex Jones is the light that cuts through the darkness of cowardice"
Say what you want about him be he called 9/11 straight up just before it happened.
You discredit him 100%...and you're wrong to do it. That is what's called not being accurate. I'd give him 40%-60% depending on the circumstance.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
have you ever been to the world trade center before 9/11? do you have any idea the magnitude of the structures?
what exactly does round pellets of steel prove to you?
What? liquefied metal raining down from the structure?
melted steel.
Just like the flowing pools found in the basements.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Say what you want about him be he called 9/11 straight up just before it happened.
You discredit him 100%...and you're wrong to do it. That is what's called not being accurate. I'd give him 40%-60% depending on the circumstance.
no, I mock him 100% . I discredit him less than that. His purpose is sort of like MM...to bring awareness to things that prob are a little skewed, but he'll do it in a way that alienates a lot of people.
edit: if he called 911 straight up before it happened, he must have had a role in it. I mean, to know that it was going to happen just before it happened and to do nothing about it is criminal. He's on the same level as any other person who knew and allowed it to happen... ok, that was prob a little over the top.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
no, I mock him 100% . I discredit him less than that. His purpose is sort of like MM...to bring awareness to things that prob are a little skewed, but he'll do it in a way that alienates a lot of people.
That is hubris again.
My favorite word lately, and this forum gets a lot of it. It's inherit to politics, for sure.
Learn hubris and you may find that it isn't alienation that you are seeing at all.
no, I mock him 100% . I discredit him less than that. His purpose is sort of like MM...to bring awareness to things that prob are a little skewed, but he'll do it in a way that alienates a lot of people.
You sure it isn't a case of shoot the messenger, and denounce all his information?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i dont know enough about it or the implications of those. So really my opinion on that means nothing, and I'm ok with that.
You shouldn't be. Melted steel is not possible without some kind of accelerant . This is precisely why pots don't melt when you cook on a gas stove.
When you put a few unanswered realities together in conjunction with other factors, the picture begins to look dramatically different than the "official story"
In fact the "official story" has been pretty much torn to shreds now. This is why so many people are demanding a new investigation. None of the official story adds up anymore.
Add in people, places, and circumstances, and it all becomes quickly overwhelming that something is very much not as we are told it is.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i dont understand the whole "molten steel" theory - what people dont think steel can melt under extreme heat. . . . has anyone ever heard of a welder? what exactly do they do?
Another thing that strikes me is how everyone talks about how dumb the President is but somehow many people think that he somehow planned these elaborate attacks gainst his own country . . interesting.
Of course things toook place in and with those towers that which have never been seen before. Do you realize the incredible temperatures that planes of that size with that amount and type of fuel can create. A burning plane with jet fuel is more or less an explosive.
You shouldn't be. Melted steel is not possible without some kind of accelerant . This is precisely why pots don't melt when you cook on a gas stove.
When you put a few unanswered realities together in conjunction with other factors, the picture begins to look dramatically different than the "official story"
In fact the "official story" has been pretty much torn to shreds now. This is why so many people are demanding a new investigation. None of the official story adds up anymore.
Add in people, places, and circumstances, and it all becomes quickly overwhelming that something is very much not as we are told it is.
So your saying that burning jet fuel is not an excelerant? And again i say take a welder for example. A simple blowtorch at a high enough temperature causes steel to melt.
So your saying that burning jet fuel is not an excelerant? And again i say take a welder for example. A simple blowtorch at a high enough temperature causes steel to melt.
Actually it isn't the same thing. Both FEMA and NIST agreeit wasn't. The fires were not conclusive at all. Ever use a blowtorch? What does the flame look like before you turn on the oxygen? Like a simple zippo lighter flame. That is an open air fire.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i dont understand the whole "molten steel" theory - what people dont think steel can melt under extreme heat. . . . has anyone ever heard of a welder? what exactly do they do?
Another thing that strikes me is how everyone talks about how dumb the President is but somehow many people think that he somehow planned these elaborate attacks gainst his own country . . interesting.
Of course things toook place in and with those towers that which have never been seen before. Do you realize the incredible temperatures that planes of that size with that amount and type of fuel can create. A burning plane with jet fuel is more or less an explosive.
The fire temperatures have been shown time and time again not to be able to melt the steel. Nobody from a-z disagrees with this.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Actually it isn't the same thing. Both FEMA and NIST agreeit wasn't. The fires were not conclusive at all. Ever use a blowtorch? What does the flame look like before you turn on the oxygen? Like a simple zippo lighter flame. That is an open air fire.
still the idea that a fire cant melt steel is rediculous and i guarantee the flames from the plane are far greater then that of a blowtorch or zippo lighter - and you said right there the fires werent conclusive at all - that doesnt rule out anything. Basically saying it wasnt conclusive is another way of saying they dont know what went on inside that building.
still the idea that a fire cant melt steel is rediculous and i guarantee the flames from the plane are far greater then that of a blowtorch or zippo lighter - and you said right there the fires werent conclusive at all - that doesnt rule out anything. Basically saying it wasnt conclusive is another way of saying they dont know what went on inside that building.
No they are/were not. Weaken steel temporarily yes, (steel also regains it's strength when the heat is removed) but melt it...no way..not even close. The was an "open air" fire. This is not under consideration as a possibility in the investigation. You do know about NIST and FEMA and their reports right? the "official" reports? They also say it was impossible, and for very obvious reasons.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
No they are/were not. Weaken steel temporarily yes, (steel also regains it's strength when the heat is removed) but melt it...no way..not even close. The was an "open air" fire. This is not under consideration as a possibility in the investigation. You do know about NIST and FEMA and their reports right? the "official" reports? They also say it was impossible, and for very obvious reasons.
The highest heat was extinguished in the first moments of its ignition. After that it was a typical open flame. No different than lighter fluid, or gasoline.
I wonder how many picnickers that have been to the local park have considered how that old steel grate they flip their burgers on is the same old steel grill their dad, or even their grandads, used to do up the burgers on when they were kids.
The highest heat was extinguished in the first moments of its ignition. After that it was a typical open flame. No different than lighter fluid, or gasoline.
I wonder how many picnickers that have been to the local park have considered how that old steel grate they flip their burgers on is the same old steel grill their dad, or even their grandads, used to do up the burgers on when they were kids.
A lot of the fuel was spent outside the buildings as well. The central core columns are like big heat sinks also. We know how steel regains it's strength when it cools.
The fires would have to be extremely intense to weaken the steel enough as the heat is drawn away from the impact zone down the lengths of the vertical beams.
Here's that woman (Edna Cintron) standing and waving in the impact zone after the fires have essentially burned themselves out. I'm not seeing too much blazing fire or intense heat there at all. From the looks of it, either is she.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
this is it then i'm back to my work for tomorrow. There is so much that occurred inside the building that day that I have no idea how to even address those issues. It's not like hitting your thumb with a hammer and being able to figure out why your thumb hurts. There are so many what if's that can never be answered. The steel could have melted and behaved like a liquid and settled at the lower point, or the point that could hold it and in re: to round pellets of steel found in dust debris i have no idea. I'm sure you can find all sorts of strange things that happen when a plane flies into a building...the first strange thing to me would be thinking, wow there's a plane in the building.
Round pellets of steel look a lot like shot from a shotgun shell. A shotgun shell that obviously hasn't found its mark. Yet.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
so secret government agents used shotguns to blow out the support beams?
Maybe it did find its mark. Hehe.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Alex Jones is an American patriot.
Courage is the hallmark of patriotism.
This country is rife with cowardice and Alex Jones is the light that cuts through the darkness of cowardice.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You mean like NIST, FEMA, or the 9/11 commission? Oh that's right, anything conducted by the U.S. government can't be trusted. So who do you propose conducts the investigation? As I previously stated, virtually no one in the mainstream media even wastes their time on these theories, so who do you suppose funds the investigation? Would you give your own money towards it? Millions were spent on these investigations, I don't know what more you want.
Incendiary bombs have been around for near a century now.
Good points. Although, to give up on logic and fact (or at least better questions) to breach the American conscience via the mainstream media is to give up entirely.
In my book, giving up is not a choice.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Oh, that Alex Jones...he's such a kidder. I heard he even has revival meetings where people say...nay, they shout!, "Alex Jones is an american patriot, Courage is the hallmark of patriotism, and Alex Jones is the light that cuts through the darkness of cowardice"
see jlew, i told you
Given my propensity to be an asshole to smartasses, that was pretty courageous.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i figured you'd be able to take it.
NIST has huge problems with explaining the anomalous 'collapse' of WTC 7.
NIST issued its final reports on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 in September 2005 after quietly "decoupling" the WTC7 probe from its investigation, (citing "staffing difficulties").
NIST said its WTC7 draft report was scheduled for release in October 2005, with a final report ready in December 2005.
However, that deadline was not met and in January 2006 NIST sought bids for research into the WTC7 collapse, with ARA awarded a contract on March 31, 2006.
Previously, NIST awarded a contract to Ramon Gilsanz and his New York engineering firm to do computer simulations of the WTC7 collapse. Dropped from the NIST website was the report titled "Structural Analysis of the response of World Trade Center 7 to debris damage and fire" (denoted NCSTAR 1-6F) by Gilsanz and nine others.
No explanation was given, though presumably this report was to have been used as 'evidence' supporting the NIST theory.
A 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, report on WTC7 co-authored by Gilsanz said the idea that fire triggered WTC7's collapse had "low probability."
Also omitted was "Analysis of Sept. 11, 2001, seismogram data" by W. Kim. Won-Young Kim of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory had previously done analyses of 9/11 seismographic data.
The government's stance on the collapse of the 47-floor WTC7 has raised eyebrows of experts, including researchers working with Gilsanz on a FEMA report, and, more recently, a Brigham Young University physics professor.
Some have attributed World Trade Center belches of smoke to dust expelled as floors crashed downward onto other floors. However, the basic gravity equation (y = 1/2gt2) proves that in two-tenths of a second a floor could have dropped no more than eight inches. A six-foot fall takes at least six-tenths of a second.
The NIST has reported that no steel debris was recovered from WTC7 and so no forensic analysis of the steel was possible.
In response to Jones and others, the NIST has inserted a note in its reports saying it had found no evidence of building destruction by missiles, bombs or controlled demolition. However, the agency cites no supporting data to show what work was done to preclude these possibilities.
Such a note is found in a report titled "Part IIC -- WTC 7 collapse," which contains a working hypothesis of fire-induced collapse, a series of graphics and photos and sketchy ideas about what might have happened. It contains no data on the sequential puffs of smoke.
Though dated April 2005, the report was not available during last year's public comment period for the twin towers report.
At 5:20 p.m., some seven hours after WTC1 fell, WTC7 collapsed almost straight down, indicating collapse must have begun on a lower floor, federal probers have said.
In a March 2005 Popular Mechanics article, "9/11: debunking the myths," lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder is quoted as saying that new evidence indicated that WTC7 showed severe structural damage following the tower collapses and that this weakening, abetted by a longterm fire, was the agency's working hypothesis.
Some 10 lower stories, or about 25 percent of the building vertically, was "scooped out," he is reported to have said. (The previous FEMA report also cited such damage, but did not regard it as compelling.)
Yet an NIST report (NCSTAR 1-3), says the NIST made no effort to check high-strain or impact properties of the type of steel used in WTC7 because "WTC7 did not suffer any high strain rate events."
In the magazine, Sunder said that an oddball design implied that failure of even one column on a lower floor might trigger collapse and suggested that a fuel-oil-fed fire contributed critical weakening.
However, an NIST report (NCSTAR 1-1J), found that the standard safeguards for the building's several fuel-oil systems would likely have blocked a longterm fuel-oil-fed fire, an idea first mentioned by FEMA probers.
The most likely source of leaking fuel would have been the Salomon Brothers system, NCSTAR 1-1J says, with probers citing two possibilities: a fuel spill from the 250-gallon "day tank" on the fifth floor or fuel continually pumped up from an underground tank, but they suggest that failsafes should have worked.
FEMA probers have said 250 gallons couldn't yield enough heat to inflict critical damage.
NIST-contracted probers Raymond A. Grill and Duane A. Johnson say it is barely conceivable that an electrical malfunction caused pumps to keep bringing up fuel from a 6,000-gallon tank buried underground. But they are puzzled as to the source of the electricity. Power to the building would have been shut off the morning of Sept. 11, though the building's emergency generators are powered by fuel oil.
The electrical schematics for the fuel system are missing, along with building maintenance records that might have yielded clues to the electrical system.
In FEMA's May 2002 report on the World Trade Center collapses, investigators wrote: "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis" for a fire-fed building collapse "has only a low probability of occurrence." They demanded further inquiry into how key supports could have given way.
Now we ALL know that NIST has 'decoupled' the WTC 7 report from their 'final report, and has since publicly called for subcontractor HELP to 'explain' what they obviously CAN NOT.
Can you guess WHO was awarded this subcontract ??? Do you know ??? How deep does your 'research' go ???
Well, guess who was awarded the 'subcontract'???
answer:
Defense Contractor Aids a Stalled 9/11 Probe:
"A major defense contractor has come to the aid of a stalled federal probe of the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, which housed Defense Department and CIA offices, after a previous WTC 7 study was quietly killed by the government.
The contract to Applied Research Associates Inc., of Albuquerque, N.M., supersedes a contract to the New York engineering firm of Gilsanz Murray Steficek, whose study of the WTC7 collapse never reached the public. Ramon Gilsanz had co-authored a 2002 federal report that expressed strong doubts about WTC7's collapse.
ARA was awarded a contract by the National Institutes of Technology and Standards, or NIST, to detect the initial cause of collapse and to come up with a computer simulation of the crash.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Precipitated steel pellets found in the debris. Melted pools of steel in the basements.
What do you make of it? Anything? Nothing?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Say what you want about him be he called 9/11 straight up just before it happened.
You discredit him 100%...and you're wrong to do it. That is what's called not being accurate. I'd give him 40%-60% depending on the circumstance.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What? liquefied metal raining down from the structure?
melted steel.
Just like the flowing pools found in the basements.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i dont know enough about it or the implications of those. So really my opinion on that means nothing, and I'm ok with that.
no, I mock him 100%
edit: if he called 911 straight up before it happened, he must have had a role in it. I mean, to know that it was going to happen just before it happened and to do nothing about it is criminal. He's on the same level as any other person who knew and allowed it to happen... ok, that was prob a little over the top.
That is hubris again.
My favorite word lately, and this forum gets a lot of it. It's inherit to politics, for sure.
Learn hubris and you may find that it isn't alienation that you are seeing at all.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You sure it isn't a case of shoot the messenger, and denounce all his information?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You shouldn't be. Melted steel is not possible without some kind of accelerant . This is precisely why pots don't melt when you cook on a gas stove.
When you put a few unanswered realities together in conjunction with other factors, the picture begins to look dramatically different than the "official story"
In fact the "official story" has been pretty much torn to shreds now. This is why so many people are demanding a new investigation. None of the official story adds up anymore.
Add in people, places, and circumstances, and it all becomes quickly overwhelming that something is very much not as we are told it is.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Another thing that strikes me is how everyone talks about how dumb the President is but somehow many people think that he somehow planned these elaborate attacks gainst his own country . . interesting.
Of course things toook place in and with those towers that which have never been seen before. Do you realize the incredible temperatures that planes of that size with that amount and type of fuel can create. A burning plane with jet fuel is more or less an explosive.
My Movie/Music Reviews & Sports Blog
So your saying that burning jet fuel is not an excelerant? And again i say take a welder for example. A simple blowtorch at a high enough temperature causes steel to melt.
My Movie/Music Reviews & Sports Blog
Actually it isn't the same thing. Both FEMA and NIST agreeit wasn't. The fires were not conclusive at all. Ever use a blowtorch? What does the flame look like before you turn on the oxygen? Like a simple zippo lighter flame. That is an open air fire.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The fire temperatures have been shown time and time again not to be able to melt the steel. Nobody from a-z disagrees with this.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
still the idea that a fire cant melt steel is rediculous and i guarantee the flames from the plane are far greater then that of a blowtorch or zippo lighter - and you said right there the fires werent conclusive at all - that doesnt rule out anything. Basically saying it wasnt conclusive is another way of saying they dont know what went on inside that building.
My Movie/Music Reviews & Sports Blog
No they are/were not. Weaken steel temporarily yes, (steel also regains it's strength when the heat is removed) but melt it...no way..not even close. The was an "open air" fire. This is not under consideration as a possibility in the investigation. You do know about NIST and FEMA and their reports right? the "official" reports? They also say it was impossible, and for very obvious reasons.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The highest heat was extinguished in the first moments of its ignition. After that it was a typical open flame. No different than lighter fluid, or gasoline.
I wonder how many picnickers that have been to the local park have considered how that old steel grate they flip their burgers on is the same old steel grill their dad, or even their grandads, used to do up the burgers on when they were kids.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
A lot of the fuel was spent outside the buildings as well. The central core columns are like big heat sinks also. We know how steel regains it's strength when it cools.
The fires would have to be extremely intense to weaken the steel enough as the heat is drawn away from the impact zone down the lengths of the vertical beams.
Here's that woman (Edna Cintron) standing and waving in the impact zone after the fires have essentially burned themselves out. I'm not seeing too much blazing fire or intense heat there at all. From the looks of it, either is she.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIVD5wT4KE
parts 2,3,4,5,6,7 are also are available
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")