[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 911 Audio and video See other 911 Audio and video Articles Title: 911 Busted: Lead NIST Engineer caught lying about Molten Metal Source: Investigate and Expose 9/11 URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU Published: Mar 3, 2009 Author: Investigate and Expose 9/11 Post Date: 2015-01-23 13:40:06 by Operation 40 Keywords: 911, NIST, Liars Views: 25182 Comments: 40 9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying John Gross- Lead NIST Engineer WTC Collapse Investigation John Gross, NIST= Liar Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22. #2. To: Operation 40 (#0) Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie. GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-23   14:34:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: GarySpFC (#2) Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie. That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it. Notice to 9-ll truthers. Don't align your selves with stupidity in attempts to attribute blame to the federal government. If you do, when the time comes that you actually have something intelligent to say, you will be dismissed. rlk  posted on  2015-01-23   16:05:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: rlk (#19) That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it. The Truthers claim the steel melted, but in reality what happened was it was just weakened. There simply wasn't enough heat there to melt steel beams or columns. GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-23   18:26:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: GarySpFC (#20) (Edited) The Truthers claim the steel melted, but in reality what happened was it was just weakened. Balderdash! The towers fell straight down into their own footprints. If your scenario was correct, the building would have tipped over at the point of impact and Then collapsed. And the original article, the molten steel that was found in the rubble weeks afterward? Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Maybe you should stick to selling insurance "Gary". Deckard  posted on  2015-01-23   18:33:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: Deckard (#21) “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.” PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning. With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward. One primary difference between these two co llapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter. As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event. GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-23   19:06:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 22. #23. To: GarySpFC (#22) Uh, numerous firefighters and first responders heard explosions. Your "theory" is nothing but hot air. Deckard  posted on  2015-01-23 19:09:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: GarySpFC, Deckard (#22) [PROTEC comment] One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground. Argument against the officially abandoned "pancake theory" of collapse. http://the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=15852&Disp=138#C138 #138. To: ghostcommander (#131) That is exactly what they do in controlled demolitions of buildings. They cut the columns with shaped charges and the floor above crashes on the floor below and then another floor in pancake fashion. The weight keeps increasing as each floor pancakes down. Wrong. They use synchronized explosive charges to take out the floors below. It cannot be done by gravity and the weight does not cause the fall. The falling floors are not meeting resistance because of the explosions. It is impossible in nature for the floors to give way all around the building simultaneously on all floors. Always, in nature, the fall will stop with the upper portion shunting off to the side. The pancake theory, which was one offered as an official explanation, was officially admitted as impossible. - - - From my archives: What became known as the "pancake theory" was hypothesized early on by Dr. Thomas Eagar. It has since been rejected. The symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed cannot be explained by the pancake theory. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. As we now learn from NIST, and as was pointed out by critics of the FEMA report which relied upon the above analysis, the progressive collapse pancake theory required all of the clips to fail simultaneously on each floor to account for the symmetrical collapse. As that was deemed impossible, NIST rendered a different theory radically different from the Eagar theory. In the NIST theory, the clips are required to NOT fail. As the current official theory by NIST prohibits the failure of the angle clips hypothesized by Dr. Eagar, his collapse theory has collapsed. NIST Fact Sheet, FAQ-2, page 2 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system -- that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns -- consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). ... the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. As Dr. Wood points out: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html Let's consider the "Pancake Theory" According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse." Dr. Wood addresses the issue of conservation of momentum: So, if motion must be restarted at every floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, if any. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor between each "pancake." After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors. Consider reality: QUESTIONS: (1) How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fail at exactly the same time? (2) If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would that portion of the building tip over or fall straight down into its own footprint? (3) What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time, and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry? nolu chan posted on 2009-12-12 1:21:17 ET nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-20 20:06:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 22. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com