Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 19:43:54 GMT -5
Walter, You and Harry O'Chicken-- a marketing guy-- are talking to a guy with a post-graduate science degree from Harvard. Now, HOLD THAT THOUGHT... When was the pseudo-scientific NIST 9/11 cover up report written, and by whom? Why was it initiated? Had a forensic fire engineering 9/11 investigation been done? How did the NIST 9/11 cover up authors explain the obvious serial explosions that caused the free fall collapse of the towers-- sans resistance? What melted the massive steel columns and explosively pulverized tons of concrete? Certainly not kerosene or gravity!! Why didn't the NIST con men try to explain the free fall collapse of WTC7? You and O'Chicken haven't been able to explain ANYTHING about what happened to the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. You're both batting zero. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 5, 2019 19:56:01 GMT -5
Walter, You and Harry O'Chicken-- a marketing guy-- are talking to a guy with a post-graduate science degree from Harvard. Now, HOLD THAT THOUGHT... When was the pseudo-scientific NIST 9/11 cover up report written, and by whom? Why was it initiated? Had a forensic fire engineering 9/11 investigation been done? How did the NIST 9/11 cover up authors explain the obvious serial explosions that caused the free fall collapse of the towers-- sans resistance? What melted the massive steel columns and explosively pulverized tons of concrete? Certainly not kerosene or gravity!! Why didn't the NIST con men try to explain the free fall collapse of WTC7? You and O'Chicken haven't been able to explain ANYTHING about what happened to the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. You're both batting zero. Again. Stick to the easy stuff. You do not have the expertise to converse about the NIST report. Some of the nerdy stuff is well over my pay-grade as well, but I know a shit-load more than you do about it. Hell, even if you did understand it, you've never actually read it so why should I bother to even try to discuss it with you? Here's a link. Go ahead and read it and then point me to the parts that are wrong. www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Apr 5, 2019 20:54:46 GMT -5
Rigging those buildings to explode would have taken weeks of time, tons of explosives, and construction on several floors of all three building. All this would have taken place in the open while employees and visitors (and maybe even building security personnel) moved through the activity daily and nightly. I've asked The Denver Idiot several times to explain why not one single person reported this to authorities but he's been too busy poring over those passenger manifests looking for witnesses to make his wild claims a reality.
If I had been an employee in WTC1 or WTC2, I would have asked those demolition experts what day should I call in sick. But, I don't have two Ivy League degrees, so BOOM! uh oh.
|
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD.
THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST
*2020 Is Negated By Covid-19
15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA
FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS
BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022!
FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER - NOW RETIRED
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 22:16:15 GMT -5
Rigging those buildings to explode would have taken weeks of time, tons of explosives, and construction on several floors of all three building. All this would have taken place in the open while employees and visitors (and maybe even building security personnel) moved through the activity daily and nightly. I've asked The Denver Idiot several times to explain why not one single person reported this to authorities but he's been too busy poring over those passenger manifests looking for witnesses to make his wild claims a reality.
If I had been an employee in WTC1 or WTC2, I would have asked those demolition experts what day should I call in sick. But, I don't have two Ivy League degrees, so BOOM! uh oh.
Cowboy,
LVI Corporation won a multi-million dollar contract in September of 2000 for asbestos removal from the WTC buildings. That company specialized in pre-demolition work and asbestos removal. (Christopher Bollyn was the American journalist who originally reported a decade ago that LVI had also worked on multi-million dollar projects with the U.S. military.*)
Also, a company called ACE Elevator reportedly did extensive maintenance and "repair" work in the WTC buildings prior to 9/11.
Like so much of the critical 9/11 evidence, these facts were black-listed from Zelikow's fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report (and the U.S. mainstream media.)
The best theory, to date, explaining the rapid, explosive demolitions (and pulverization) of the steel WTC towers (and WTC7) on 9/11 is that the steel sub pans for the concrete floors were most likely "painted" with a thermate gel-- and steel-melting thermate explosive charges affixed to the central and exterior steel columns.Hence, no pancaking of concrete floors-- it was all explosively pulverized-- and liquefied steel at ground zero.
The unusual thermitic heat at Ground Zero persisted for 15 weeks after 9/11.
Trust me. Walter doesn't have a clue about the physics and chemistry of 9/11. He gets an "F."
Did you watch the brief video above?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 5, 2019 22:42:44 GMT -5
Rigging those buildings to explode would have taken weeks of time, tons of explosives, and construction on several floors of all three building. All this would have taken place in the open while employees and visitors (and maybe even building security personnel) moved through the activity daily and nightly. I've asked The Denver Idiot several times to explain why not one single person reported this to authorities but he's been too busy poring over those passenger manifests looking for witnesses to make his wild claims a reality.
If I had been an employee in WTC1 or WTC2, I would have asked those demolition experts what day should I call in sick. But, I don't have two Ivy League degrees, so BOOM! uh oh. You are asking the equivalent of "Where are the passengers?" 9/11 kooks cannot answer the easy stuff. As Wilson demonstates, he cannot address such rational questions without resorting to mindlessness. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 0:27:24 GMT -5
Rigging those buildings to explode would have taken weeks of time, tons of explosives, and construction on several floors of all three building. All this would have taken place in the open while employees and visitors (and maybe even building security personnel) moved through the activity daily and nightly. I've asked The Denver Idiot several times to explain why not one single person reported this to authorities but he's been too busy poring over those passenger manifests looking for witnesses to make his wild claims a reality.
If I had been an employee in WTC1 or WTC2, I would have asked those demolition experts what day should I call in sick. But, I don't have two Ivy League degrees, so BOOM! uh oh. You are asking the equivalent of "Where are the passengers?" 9/11 kooks cannot answer the easy stuff. As Wilson demonstates, he cannot address such rational questions without resorting to mindlessness. Walter hasn't posted a single intelligible comment about the subject of this thread-- the scientific proof of explosive, controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Zilch. As for the planes and passengers, those are not "simple" aspects of the complex CIA/Mossad 9/11 military op, at all. There is still a great deal of anomalous, destroyed, and hidden data on those subjects. Walter is basing his erroneous, simplistic beliefs about 9/11 on a carefully orchestrated, false flag government narrative-- a military psy op. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 6, 2019 1:00:30 GMT -5
Walter, You and Harry O'Chicken-- a marketing guy-- are talking to a guy with a post-graduate science degree from Harvard.
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 6, 2019 1:11:54 GMT -5
You are asking the equivalent of "Where are the passengers?" 9/11 kooks cannot answer the easy stuff. As Wilson demonstates, he cannot address such rational questions without resorting to mindlessness. Walter hasn't posted a single intelligible comment about the subject of this thread-- the scientific proof of explosive, controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Zilch. As for the planes and passengers, those are not "simple" aspects of the complex CIA/Mossad 9/11 military op, at all. |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 6, 2019 9:22:23 GMT -5
Simple question, Willie.
Have you studied any of the NIST report?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 11:15:22 GMT -5
Simple question, Willie. Have you studied any of the NIST report? Yes. It's bunk.
It has been called "pathological science" by one physicist-- a pseudo-scientific computer model that tweaks the variabled to "support" a pre-determined false narrative/thesis.
Now, Walt, let me ask YOU three simple questions about the long-delayed NIST "report."
1) Why did the NIST authors refuse to release the "data" they used in their computer "simulation?"
2) Did they incorporate forensic evidence about the demolished WTC towers into their report-- e.g., chemical analysis of the steel and debris, video and witness evidence of explosions and liquefied steel?
3) Did they explain the observed sudden, free fall collapse of the entire 47 floor WTC7 building-- sans resistance?
Ready, go!
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 6, 2019 13:17:37 GMT -5
Simple question, Willie. Have you studied any of the NIST report? Yes. It's bunk. It has been called "pathological science" by one physicist-- a pseudo-scientific computer model that tweaks the variabled to "support" a pre-determined false narrative/thesis. Now, Walt, let me ask YOU three simple questions about the long-delayed NIST "report." 1) Why did the NIST authors refuse to release the "data" they used in their computer "simulation?" 2) Did they incorporate forensic evidence about the demolished WTC towers into their report-- e.g., chemical analysis of the steel and debris, video and witness evidence of explosions and liquefied steel? 3) Did they explain the observed sudden, free fall collapse of the entire 47 floor WTC7 building-- sans resistance? Ready, go!
What, specifically, was "bunk"? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 14:51:19 GMT -5
Yes. It's bunk. It has been called "pathological science" by one physicist-- a pseudo-scientific computer model that tweaks the variabled to "support" a pre-determined false narrative/thesis. Now, Walt, let me ask YOU three simple questions about the long-delayed NIST "report." 1) Why did the NIST authors refuse to release the "data" they used in their computer "simulation?" 2) Did they incorporate forensic evidence about the demolished WTC towers into their report-- e.g., chemical analysis of the steel and debris, video and witness evidence of explosions and liquefied steel? 3) Did they explain the observed sudden, free fall collapse of the entire 47 floor WTC7 building-- sans resistance? Ready, go!
What, specifically, was "bunk"?
1) The claim that burning kerosene (and office furniture) caused the sudden-onset, explosive demolitions and free fall collapses of three massive steel skyscrapers.
2) Calling the visible and audible serial explosions that demolished the WTC towers "pressure pulses."
3) Refusing to provide or discuss any fire engineering data about the WTC debris-- which proved that steel liquefying thermate explosives were used in the demolitions.
4) Refusing to include any forensic analysis or discussion of the obvious audio-visual and overwhelmingly consistent testimony of witnesses about the serial explosions and liquefied steel at Ground Zero.
Other than that, you and Harry are good to go.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 6, 2019 15:57:21 GMT -5
What, specifically, was "bunk"? 1) The claim that burning kerosene (and office furniture) caused the sudden-onset, explosive demolitions and free fall collapses of three massive steel skyscrapers. 2) Calling the visible and audible serial explosions that demolished the WTC towers "pressure pulses."
3) Refusing to provide or discuss any fire engineering data about the WTC debris-- which proved that steel liquefying thermate explosives were used in the demolitions. 4) Refusing to include any forensic analysis or discussion of the obvious audio-visual and overwhelmingly consistent testimony of witnesses about the serial explosions and liquefied steel at Ground Zero.
Other than that, you and Harry are good to go.
Are you suggesting that fires involving contents, notwithstanding an accelerant, cannot reach a temperature that would affect the performance of a steel beam? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 6, 2019 16:20:51 GMT -5
Simple question, Willie. Have you studied any of the NIST report? Yes. It's bunk. It has been called "pathological science" by one physicist-- a pseudo-scientific computer model that tweaks the variabled to "support" a pre-determined false narrative/thesis. Now, Walt, let me ask YOU three simple questions about the long-delayed NIST "report." 1) Why did the NIST authors refuse to release the "data" they used in their computer "simulation?" 2) Did they incorporate forensic evidence about the demolished WTC towers into their report-- e.g., chemical analysis of the steel and debris, video and witness evidence of explosions and liquefied steel? 3) Did they explain the observed sudden, free fall collapse of the entire 47 floor WTC7 building-- sans resistance? Ready, go!
Who is the physicist who made that claim? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 6, 2019 16:30:33 GMT -5
1) The claim that burning kerosene (and office furniture) caused the sudden-onset, explosive demolitions and free fall collapses of three massive steel skyscrapers. 2) Calling the visible and audible serial explosions that demolished the WTC towers "pressure pulses."
3) Refusing to provide or discuss any fire engineering data about the WTC debris-- which proved that steel liquefying thermate explosives were used in the demolitions. 4) Refusing to include any forensic analysis or discussion of the obvious audio-visual and overwhelmingly consistent testimony of witnesses about the serial explosions and liquefied steel at Ground Zero.
Other than that, you and Harry are good to go.
Are you suggesting that fires involving contents, notwithstanding an accelerant, cannot reach a temperature that would affect the performance of a steel beam?
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
