Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 10th, 2006 #281
Whirlwind
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: S.E.PA
Posts: 1,626
Default

Structural steel has to be covered with something to make it aesthetically pleasing, or out of site. My guess is the covering is required to be fireproof to avoid the structural steel uprights from becoming flame-propogating columns/chimneys.
__________________
KILL YOUR TV! Or at least stop taking it more seriously than a goldfish.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #282
Fissile
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzJoseph
Agree completely. The responses from Team Bush has gone past desperate and entered incomprehensible.
Just like the pro-conspiracy argument has been from the start.

ETA: I refuted your childish arguments in numerous other posts. Apparently facts, logic and science mean nothing to any of you. From here on out, I refute your moronic bullshit with equally moronic bullshit.

I say that the towers were hit with photon torpedoes. Did you know that William Shatner and Leonard Nemoy are both jews?
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #283
Joe Snuffy
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Soon to be Oregon
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie
But at what speed?

One floor collapsing onto another would be met with RESISTANCE. That's what the BYU Professor and others are on about. They say if I were to have pushed a GRAND PIANO off the North WTC Tower at the same moment in time the South WTC began its descent, the Grand Piano and the South Tower would have hit the ground at almost exactly the same time!

The Physics guys say that simply defies belief and could only be explained by the RESISTANCE having been removed with many, many demolition charges. That 'pancake' theory is discredited bullshit.
How come the pieces of the structure falling off to the side of the towers fell faster than the collapse speed. Anyone can see this in the videos so stop saying such nonsense.

 
Old March 10th, 2006 #284
Fissile
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie
Flames on your gas bareque are a dam sight hotter than the black smoke oxygen starved kerosine fire in the WTC on 911. But heat inside the combustion chamber of a modern turbocharged piston motor is infinitely hotter. The steel piston rings don't melt even when subjected to an explosion comparable to a hand grenade, in an extremely confined space many thousand times a minute.

The shills are grasping at straws.
Pistons can't melt, huh? Somebody should have informed this piston.

Bad piston, don't you know you can't melt from some silly old gasoline fire.

 
Old March 10th, 2006 #285
MOMUS
Doubts the official story
 
MOMUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Pineywoods
Posts: 4,974
Default Makes sense to a kike I suppose.

Have you seen the video yet that the thread is about, Fizzie? No? Yet you continue to post your remarks on this thread. To an open-minded gentile that's incomprehensibly stupid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fissile
Just like the pro-conspiracy argument has been from the start.
Originally Posted by FranzJoseph
Agree completely. The responses from Team Bush has gone past desperate and entered incomprehensible.
__________________
Hmmph!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #286
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fissile
If fire has no weakening effect on metal, why do cars have cooling systems?
.
Of course fire has a weakening effect on metal. But are there any examples of fires in highrises causing pancake collapse of all every single floor and 47 vertical columns too all at once leaving nothing but a pile of rubble?

Take a look at these photos of the burnt hulk of the Windsor highrise fire in Madrid.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #287
News
Friendly
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,778
Default

Quote:
Of course fire has a weakening effect on metal. But are there any examples of fires in highrises causing pancake collapse of all every single floor and 47 vertical columns too all at once leaving nothing but a pile of rubble?

Take a look at these photos of the burnt hulk of the Windsor highrise fire in Madrid.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
This is really key, guys. Fire never caused a collapse like this in the past. The government's conspiracy theory has it happening 3 times in one day. That's a hell of a "first".

My knowledge of steel and temperatures and stesses is small enough that I honestly believed the government story was possible. Then I read more about building #7. Some windows knocked out and some very small fires. No fuel. Boom Boom Boom and it fell to pieces like the towers did.

Fissile, people are learning more about this attack. There's not much you can do about it. It really was an attack. No doubt about that.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #288
Fissile
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes
Of course fire has a weakening effect on metal. But are there any examples of fires in highrises causing pancake collapse of all every single floor and 47 vertical columns too all at once leaving nothing but a pile of rubble?

Take a look at these photos of the burnt hulk of the Windsor highrise fire in Madrid.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
The Windsor tower didn't suffer structural damage before it burned, neither was the fireproofing compromised by an aircraft impact.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #289
Fissile
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,370
Default

Jet fuel can't damage steel? Somebody should have told the Germans.

Quote:
Given the lower-quality steels used in the 004B, these engines typically only had a service life of some 10-25 hours (perhaps double this in the hands of a skilled pilot). Another shortcoming of the engine, common to all early turbojets, was its sluggish response to throttle. Worse, it was fairly easy to "dump" too much fuel into the engine by thottleing up too quickly, allowing heat to build up before the cooling air could remove it. This led to softing of the turbine blades, and was a major cause for engine failures. Nevertheless, it made jet power for combat aircraft a reality for the first time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #290
News
Friendly
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,778
Default

He's very interested in this. That's for sure. That's why he's here. I have no doubts that he's read and watched all that we have. There's a dozen reasons why a plane and it's fuel can't make skyscrapers like the WTC towers just crumble to bits. He knows that.

Even if all that information is ignored, he's stuck on building #7. He won't even mention it.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #291
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

I'm not really interested in this, since I know the story the government told doesn't hold any water and I know who controls the government, so that is enough, but I suppose I can pick up some slack.

Joe, if it is falling faster that means something must have applied some force to it making its downwards momentum greater than that accounted for by gravity, say some explosions for example.

Fissile you keep on comparing apples with oranges. Anymore moving parts you going to compare to static structures or is this all part of your now infamous Star Trek defense?

Johnny Cochran, you silly incomprehensable old blackman, come back all is forgiven!

Oh yes and I'm off to bed everybody, so I wish you a good day or good night where ever you are. Catch you all later.
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.

Last edited by Cthulhu; March 10th, 2006 at 09:49 AM.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #292
Contumacyman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 446
Default

Fissle,

You came back but you STILL haven't told us WHY you believe the crashing of the planes caused the buildings to collapse? WHY do you believe that? HUH? Go through it step by step with us, ok? Please don't respond with MORE QUESTIONS, just your detailed scenario, unless you have NO IDEA yourself. Ih which case, why do you beleive something you cannot explain logically to others here? Are you swallowing something on BLIND FAITH? Tsk, tsk.

Snuffy, what is your theory? Did the planes crashing cuase the collapse -or what? Do you even have a theory? Get specific, ok?

Contumacyman
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #293
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Snuffy
How come the pieces of the structure falling off to the side of the towers fell faster than the collapse speed. Anyone can see this in the videos so stop saying such nonsense.
Of COURSE it is faster. It's flying sideways hudreds of feet! Take another LOOK at the video.

The reason?

It was ejected by the massive explosions the the centre of the building. You'd have to blind not to see it, unless of course, you don't want to see it. Or if you're one of the three stooges, you not only don't want to see it, you don't want anyone else to see it.

See?
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #294
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fissile
The Windsor tower didn't suffer structural damage before it burned, neither was the fireproofing compromised by an aircraft impact.
ok, no structural damage, but what was the structural damage to the WTC-- being banged into from the side? so if the plane whacked into it sideways, why didnt it flop over sideways? if you kick a weeble-wobble, does it fall down or pancake vertically?

also was WTC7 structurally damaged?
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #295
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

the most basic premise that can be reasonably accepted is that it was a demolition that caused all three collapses.

that doesnt tell you who set the charges, or why, or whether or not the planes were hijacked or not,

just that the buildings were demolished.

We bring questions and ask for a decent chance to investigate the physical evidence. Which in arsons and transportation accidents is always preserved, right?

Ooops-- Jewliani sent the stuff off to the landfill, and sold the scrap to the Chinks for recycling 2 weeks later. Evidence was destroyed.

Destruction of evidence in court, if it can be proven, establishes some very bad inferences against the one who "spoliates" the evidence. For obvious reasons.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #296
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Folks, opposition forum user "guy," an Israeli research assistant flunkie living in NYC, wants to chime in on this. Let's hear what he has to say.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=30411

the title of his thread is "why theologists should stay the fuck away from science."
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #297
Augustus Sutter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fissile
Jet fuel can't damage steel? Somebody should have told the Germans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004
Your idiotic attempts to act as though you know something are really pathetic. You keep taking something completely out of the context in which it is being discussed and using it as inductive logic to prove your point. Take this gem you just posted for instance. Jet fuel lying in a puddle on fire doesn't burn very hot. Jet fuel mixed with oxygen and compressed does get hot. Why does anybody bother with this moron? Without Jacob P. Slovianski here to spin and constantly reframe the debate you show yourself for the lame dullard you are.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #298
Todd in FL
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 3,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustus Sutter
Jet fuel lying in a puddle on fire doesn't burn very hot. Jet fuel mixed with oxygen and compressed does get hot.
Great point.

Couple this with the fact that the jet fuel in the towers was oxygen starved (compared to an engine cylinder) it puts the burden of proof back on the skeptics.

Take into account that WTC 7 didn't even have any jet fuel inside it makes one wonder if the reason the Twin Towers collapsed was because of weakened steel due to jet fuel then how did WTC 7 collapse?
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #299
Fissile
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustus Sutter
Your idiotic attempts to act as though you know something are really pathetic. You keep taking something completely out of the context in which it is being discussed and using it as inductive logic to prove your point. Take this gem you just posted for instance. Jet fuel lying in a puddle on fire doesn't burn very hot. Jet fuel mixed with oxygen and compressed does get hot. Why does anybody bother with this moron? Without Jacob P. Slovianski here to spin and constantly reframe the debate you show yourself for the lame dullard you are.
I keep "taking something completely out of context"? How about those bullshit videos, of stitched together sound bites, that you all keep offering as "proof".

BTW, jet engines don't operate on liquid oxygen, they use air for the combustion process -- rocket engines use liquid oxygen. Moron.
 
Old March 10th, 2006 #300
Fissile
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes
ok, no structural damage, but what was the structural damage to the WTC-- being banged into from the side? so if the plane whacked into it sideways, why didnt it flop over sideways? if you kick a weeble-wobble, does it fall down or pancake vertically?

also was WTC7 structurally damaged?
It's obvious that you don't know, or don't want to know the engineering details of WTC 1 & 2. WTC 1 & 2 were "tube" designs. They weren't a conventional design using steel columns and beams throughout the structure --like the old Empire State Building for example. If you don't believe me, contact Leslie Roberson, the man who designed WTC 1 & 2 -- I already posted his e-mail.

WTC 1 & 2 weren't "bumped", they had massive holes torn in their sides by those airplanes. I saw it with my own eyes; you saw a TV show. Unless you were there to see it, it's hard to appreciate just how large those holes were. When I got to a spot where I could see the buildings clearly, I was shocked --not that they collapsed, but that they stood up for as long as they did after the airplane impacts.

Last edited by Fissile; March 10th, 2006 at 06:18 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, 911, c4l, gov, jew bs, jew vs jew, jews did 9-11, wtc

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 AM.
Page generated in 0.51183 seconds.