Thanks mexi ... you prove that there is indeed a home viewing audience ... and it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without HW, olosto, natone, and the rest of the bushwhacked clan ... let give them a hand again ladies and gentlemen ...
NoDrama is very good at finding pictures ... No ... I wonder if you can find the picture of the construction of the center beams ... you can see the start of them in the picture I posted of the construction ... I've been looking for this picture ... it's shows the masive center of the building with the beams ... know what I speak of?

Yes I know ... but that's how delusional the bushwhacked are ... they are so used to fauxnews that they actually believe that all they have to do is make a statement ... doesn't matter how ridiculous ... with no source backing ... they truly believe they are making a valid argument ... but that shit don't fly here ... on corporate news maybe ... but not here ... they have a real problem comprehending that.

You got that right ... don't come on this thread like some of these bushwhacked blowing it out their ass as expect to go unchallenged ... It makes it so easy to show their stupidity ... keep checking in.

Yeah ... a 3000 degree heat ...which an office fire or jet plane fuel can't produce ...

Only to the bushwhacked minded ... to people that can comprehend facts and science ... it's not flawed logic at all.

Save the bullshit play on words ... that "fire" was not hot enough to produce the damage that was done ... not without the help of thermite. There is no way you can talk around that fact no matter how hard you try.


The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are capable of blowing shit out your ass ... nothing more.

Been there done that ... rebar is no where near the thickness or strength of fireproofed steel ... it is used to reinforce the concrete ... and the fact that the entire bridge didn't collapse proves that a gas fire can't bring down an entire fireproofed skyscraper in it's own footprint in a matter of seconds ... not without help ... It's not my problem that you can't comprehend a simple concept and scientific fact.

Been there ... again ... done that ... again ... next.

Once again you are blowing it out your ass ... show us where I insisted the parts were planted ... now watch folks ... he will come back with nothing but his thumb up his ass ... watch now.

With a question like that I can legally call you an idiot.


Your bridge bullshit doesn't cut it ... different construction ... no where near the damage ... if you want continue to look stupid with this knock yourself out.

No if you continue to push bullshit that is easily discredited your going to meet with the same response ... your fucked in the head. Period.

And you are like a woman that thinks she's invisible ... yet everyone can see her.

And you are too stupid to accept the obvious ... so what else is new?


Keep making up bullshit no one but a bushwhacked mind will buy if it makes you happy ... I will simply continue to show our home viewing audience how stupid and desperate you are. Lots of fun.

__________________
Our Beautiful Ladies ...
Keep Them Safe Keep Them SECRET!
911 ... inside job!

Yes... and nobody is claiming that the steel was melted.


It is the convenient use of a misnomer. Don't get mad at me because you either don't understand what melt means, or you are incapable of understanding that metals weaken under heat.


I am not playing with words, I am using them correctly, and demonstrating your inappropriate use of them, by which your "scientific facts" are based on. You do not understand the terms being used. I am attempting to make them clear.

You don't believe in this.


They call it fatigue.


I am not asking you about rebar. See "fat crayon writing"


I said there were all kinds of sh1t in the streets... including a jet engine... and you asked for a source... to which I replied...


To which you replied...


What did I miss there? Didn't seem like a real subtle post.

For the fifth time, whether you understand it or not... I am not asking you to equate this event to 9/11. I am trying to determine if you are rational... or irrational. Now... if you deny the fatigue of steel... as that seems to be your position... on that bridge, then please explain the bent squished metal in the fat crayon post.

this thread is too funny. 51 pages of GrowRebel argument, which consists of nothing more than calling people "bushwhacked" and insulting them.

cannabis tends to worsen the effects of paranoid schizophrenia.

ad hominem eh?

Join the club then bushwhacked ... there a bit more in this thread other than insults ... but someone with your "bushwhacked" mind wouldn't be able to see that ... if fact you people go out of you way to avoid any facts ... nothing new here ... move along. And cannabis tends to heighten your perception of truth ... so I take it you don't smoke.

__________________
Our Beautiful Ladies ...
Keep Them Safe Keep Them SECRET!
911 ... inside job!

*Notes the distraction only makes the silence louder.

I don't really see how you can get after me for not scolding Growrebel on his misinformed airliner procedures when you yourself say nothing about Olosto and his "Theories" that defy all laws of physics, Am I to conclude that you too are a proponent of the plane flew really fast into the building that it vaporized aluminum and rust from steel and created thermite theory? It matters not if a pilot can go off course in a private plane and not get shot down. Guess what? terrorists do not take over small private planes, thats why the FAA has had special procedures for airliners since the Iran hijackings back in the 70's, no Ifs ands or buts, EVERY COMMERCIAL AIRLINER has to follow the rules. Yeah your right, a small private single engine aircraft CAN go do some flying without a flight plan being submitted, but an airliner certainly cannot. The last time I checked and absolutley NO ONE refutes the fact that they were airliners that flew into the towers.n Hell i watched the second one fly right into the building, and according to good ole former president Bush, he watched the first plane fly into the building while no one else did, and he saw it on TV...here he even admits it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60 its a big ass LIE. Now don't try to defend him because hes Dim Witted, he knows he is lying.

as far as how the towers were constructed, well here are some pics




Everything is Steel here, no concrete has been poured yet, See all the massive beams on the left side? thats the core.


Even the outside walls are constructed of huge steel meshed beams, you can see the core beams sticking out of the decking here.


Another good pic showing the core and surrounding mesh of interconnected steel beams. Thats a whole lotta metal there, so much that it should easily be able to dissipate heat from an office fire and even a few minutes of fuel fire

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with “controlled demolition” — and even then it’s very difficult. Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when ‘toppling over’ falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? strong evidence for an ‘inside’ job.”
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns , the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The paradox, is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses. These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling. How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon.
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings.
• Steel supports were “partly evaporated,” but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite. Buildings not felled by explosives have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck.

Now think about this, the airplane is lightweight, it has to be to be able to fly. Its made of some of the lightest metals known to man, aluminum and titanium and magnesium. Now theres some plastic and other crap too, but for the majority its mostly aluminum, engines are titanium and the wheels are usually magnesium. Now probably 60% is aluminum and the towers are made of mostly steel, when did aluminum become so damned hard that it can sever huge steel beams in the core? it just makes no sense, i can see it knocking down the outer wall from all the momentum, but once it got to the core there is so much steel there that I doubt it made much of a dent, it certainly did not go all the way through thats pretty obvious from what we all saw with our own eyes, so how does damage to 1% of the building really casue it to fall, after all they are designed to be hit by airplanes, thats taken into consideration when they are being built. Also you do realize that these buildings have fire sprinkler systems correct? For some reason they didn't work. guess what? those big buildings have there systems inspected and tested every month by qualified professionals, if anything on a fire alarm isn't working it sends a trouble signal and gets repaired pronto. For some reason none of the systems worked in any of the buildings?

if the fire was so hot, why is this woman (Edna Clinton) able to bear the heat and wave at us? if it were really hot enough to cause steel to bend and deform how is she able to withstand it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s

This video is VERY hard to refute, she must be a "SuperWoman" or something to just stand there in the 5000F heat and wave at us? How is that explained away?

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

I am of the opinion that there was a sh1tload of rust and aluminum in that building, and when it collapsed on itself there was pulverization on a monolithic scale.

As to whether you are a commercial or private plane, well that depends on what your transponder says. The transponders being switched off were the second things to happen... after killing the pilots.

They do not send jets after a NON COMMUNICATING, NON TRANSPONDING PLANE unless it behaves erratically or enters restricted airspace... which, btw, is sort of the point of restricted airspace. (which again... is not around the pentagon or DCA).

Once they knew they had at least 3 go rogue, they did scramble.

Now, please answer my simple yes or no question before I continue to address any more of yours.

__________________

LOL once they knew they went rogue, LOL that means after they hit their targets of course. Let me answer your question about the bridge, yes its true that a very hot fire burning long enough can cause metal to soften as it were. but here is the problem... read on...

A tanker truck carrying approximately 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline caught on fire on the Interstate 80/880 interchange in Oakland, California early Sunday morning around 3:40 AM. The fire resulted in the collapse of at least two sections of bridges at the interchange, including one carrying I-580. The multi-level freeway interchange known as the MacArthur Maze connects the Bay Bridge (Interstate 80) to Interstates 580, 880, and 980 and California State Highway 24, and as such it connects several major cities in California, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley.
The driver, James Mosqueda, 51, of Woodland, California, escaped from his truck before the fire. He was the only person reported to be hurt, suffering second-degree burns. No other vehicles were involved in the crash.
The driver was believed to be speeding, resulting in a loss of control of the truck, causing it to flip over and subsequently burst into flames. As the truck was traveling on the interchange of I-80 eastbound to I-880 southbound near the San Francisco Bay Bridge, it is speculated to have hit a guard rail or column during a turn. Shortly thereafter, it exploded into a fire that lasted SEVERAL HOURS.



Emphasis added to the several hours of burning Unleaded gasoline fuel, compared to the several minutes of burning fuel in the towers and in the case of WTC #7 no hydrocarbon based fuel at all.


Your example does not lend much creedence to explain anything about the towers since the circumstances and the structure are nothing alike. But yeah I can agree with you that given hours of a hot intense flame metal can soften enough to deform them. In the WTC attacks the flames never persisted for long enough, nor were intense enough to cause Many many multiple HUGE steel beams to all fail at once, and then there is the free fall factor that is impossible in that scenario also.


Hey what ...Huh? do you believe that we got into the Vietnam war becasue they fired upon us in the gulf of tonkin too, or do you suppose that we just made it all up so we could get into the war in the first place?

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Great. That is awesome. Thank you for answering the question. Odd that it took almost 10 pages, asking the same question over and over again don't you think?

First of all... to address your "SEVERAL HOURS" emPHAsis.

"The single-vehicle crash occurred on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail at 3:41 a.m."

"Firefighters immediately noticed the upper connector ramp was buckling and seven minutes after they arrived -- at 4:02 a.m. -- it collapsed, Price said."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGVOPHQU46.DTL

So let's first knock those several hours down to a much more respectable 21 minutes.

Then let us marry that fact with a couple of others, presuming you do not object.

8600 gallons of gasoline on an empty roadway heated to the point of self-destruction, 6 i-beams in an open air fire in 21 minutes. Road seems less damaged than those big assed beams... with a lot of impact too. Looks like it just slid off... probably off all that gooey rebar grow was talkin about...

"Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat -- and that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports."

Structural steel (as in multiple story large steel structures) looses half of its rigidity at 1000F (that's about 538C).
Source: The Structural Engineer. "Stainless steel in fire" p77. The Institute of Structural Engineers' library. (Sorry... it's a book. I actually asked a structural engineer. He showed me the equation... and I realized pretty instantly why I am not an engineer. I did not discuss 9/11 with him, because frankly the knowledge that I wasted this much time doing this would damage my image.)

As opposed to 5 floors of combustibles and fire from more than 20,000 lbs of jet fuel which burned for 56 minutes, and 102 minutes respectively, not to mention collisions of about 200,000 lbs (half max takeoff weight, there may be more accurate information out there but this seemed ok to throw around inconsequentially) at several hundred mph.


I am not making the great leap yet... don't get excited... I am just trying to find some common ground... a pool of facts that we can agree on. Let me know where we are so far, and if you want to jump ahead and ask me a question I will answer it, unless it requires this little foundation I am building before throwing up the walls.

Frankly, I'd rather go back to aviation. NORDO SOP. Was VFR like a mofakka. You need to bone up mang. Gotta know NORDO procedures cold. You don't wanna be up there fishing out your flight manual deaf.

If you want to let that argument go so we can get to the meat I'll understand.

If you take umbrage with ANYTHING I have stated as fact above... please address that first.


Man... remember when an attack on a US vessel was a reason to go to war? Wikipied for your protection

I dunno... do you think the Jews really did it? What about alien involvement? Tell ya what... I won't invent what you think, and you don't contrive what I think. Fair enough?

Side note... I need to know if I can reference NIST as a credible source, or if you will also not use NIST or sources which site NIST for that specific information? As I see it, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are not influential of the evidence itself. Not referencing NIST is going to get difficult... for both of us.

Last thing I have to address... you are absolutely correct to point out that I did not address the Ostlo. I realized that I was just focusing on what I was saying and casually observing him... as were you. While I didn't think he was correct as to how aluminum and iron oxide powder came to be... I felt he was on the right track... Point taken.



(Damn though Grow... it looks like your more reasonable friend directly contradicts your earlier avoidance of reality. I betcha he got bushwacked... whaddaya think? You probably just witnessed some sort of bushwack jedi mind trick... from here on out... I am going to refer to this obvious telepathic ploy of mine as "fact finding"... just so you know what I really mean...)

__________________

Ok... wtf?





I clearly see the same UFO in both of these pictures. FFS PEOPLE!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!




Sponsored by: Wife of what... huh?

__________________