9-11 First Responders Bought Off as They Die from the Lie.
knews4...@yahoo.com
You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
what they saw on the WTC site
http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
knews4...@yahoo.com
Brad Guth
What nation isn't built on lies?
~ BG
Iarnrod
lie:
> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
physical impossibility.
hal
wrote:
>On Mar 12, 9:06=A0pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook continued to
>lie:
>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
>> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.fi=
>rst.2.1555218.html
>
>We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
>they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
>physical impossibility.
So what exactly happened to WTC 7?
Iarnrod
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
Structural failure from raging fires set off when WTC1 sent thousands
of tons of free-falling steel and flaming debris crashing into it,
gouging an 18-23 story hole into its south side. The wall started
bulging visibly within a few hours and the firefighters were pulled
out because structural experts assessing the situation realized it was
unstable and subject to collapse at any moment.
It is a proven FACT that there were no controlled demolition
explosives used. Even a simpleton like the 9/11 kooks here can watch
the videos and observe this plain FACT since none are going off. But
they have blind faith in silent and invisible explosives because they
can't let go of their preconceived conclusions.
Strabo
> On Mar 14, 9:06 am, hal wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 9:06=A0pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook continued to
>>> lie:
>>>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
>>>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
>>>> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.fi=
>>> rst.2.1555218.html
>>> We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
>>> they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
>>> physical impossibility.
>> So what exactly happened to WTC 7?
>
> Structural failure from raging fires set off when WTC1 sent thousands
> of tons of free-falling steel and flaming debris crashing into it,
> gouging an 18-23 story hole into its south side. The wall started
> bulging visibly within a few hours and the firefighters were pulled
> out because structural experts assessing the situation realized it was
> unstable and subject to collapse at any moment.
>
> It is a proven FACT that there were no controlled demolition
> explosives used.
>
No, that's a matter of probability.
It means that the commission reported that no explosive material was
found, not that it didn't happen.
AZ Nomad
Are you shitting me? You didn't notice those planes? Destroying the
main WTC buildings? You didn't notice that the main WTC buildings fell?
Too bad you weren't standing in front of the lobby. You might have also
notice all the flying debris as your last act of semiconsciousness.
WTC7 was destroyed by debris and fires. You are aware that buildings
can weakened by fires? The fires were witnessed by too many people
for you to even consider your idiotic conspiriacy theory.
Are you really this stupid? Or is it something you've tought yourself
to be?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook continued to
> lie:
>
> > All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> > You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
> > what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
>
> We know what they saw, kookshit.
But you weren't there standing at their side.
>They already said so.
Liar.
Why do continue to lie and say people didn't say or see things they
did?
http://www.google.com/search?q=118+eye+witness+9-11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
>And one thing
> they did NOT see was controlled demolition,
So you know what they saw and they didn't?
Were you hiding in their heads seeing with their eyes and hearing with
their ears?
And if "no one" saw CD why did nearly every newscaster from Jennings
to Dan Rather comment "looks just like so many old buildings that
we've seen demolished?"
You are blind.
>which is proven to be a
> physical impossibility.
No, liar, nothing of the sort has been "proven impossible" by you or
anyone else.
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
The only thing "proven," as history has shown, is that steel framed
high rises DON'T "globally collapse" into dust from fires or any other
type of disaster without help from incendiaries.
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 9:06 am, hal wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 12, 9:06=A0pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook continued to
> >>> lie:
> >>>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> >>>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
> >>>> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.fi=
> >>> rst.2.1555218.html
> >>> We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
> >>> they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
> >>> physical impossibility.
> >> So what exactly happened to WTC 7?
>
> > Structural failure from raging fires set off when WTC1 sent thousands
> > of tons of free-falling steel and flaming debris crashing into it,
> > gouging an 18-23 story hole into its south side. The wall started
> > bulging visibly within a few hours and the firefighters were pulled
> > out because structural experts assessing the situation realized it was
> > unstable and subject to collapse at any moment.
>
> > It is a proven FACT that there were no controlled demolition
> > explosives used.
>
> >
>
> No, that's a matter of probability.
Sorry but no, it is a proven face.
> It means that the commission reported that no explosive material was
> found, not that it didn't happen.
Billions of people observed live that it did not happen, dearie. There
were no explosions going off at collapse initiation. No search for
"explosive material" needs to occur to simply watch the videotape of
the collapses and note that there are no explosives in use. FACT.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 14, 7:36 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook continued to
> > lie:
>
> > > All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> > > You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
> > > what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
>
> > We know what they saw, kookshit.
>
> But you weren't there standing at their side.
Uh, neither were you, kooker.
NONE of them says they saw CD explosives going off. And we know their
testimony is correct because as we can all plainly see from the 1,000s
of videos of the event, NO EXPLOSIVES are going off at all. This is a
proven FACT that you cannot deny. You propose CD explosives only at
the risk of admitting you are insanely delusional and a pathological
liar.
> >They already said so.
>
> Liar.
You are the liar, that is a FACT I have proven beyond doubt,
knowsknothing.
> Why do continue to lie and say people didn't say or see things they
> did?
Why do YOU contonue to lie when your own cites support ME and
contradict you? NONE of them claims to see controlled demolition
explosives going off. NONE and that is the FACT. And it is physically
impossible anyway, and the videos all PROVE BEYOND DOUBT that there
are no explosives going off. This is plainly observable.
> >And one thing
> > they did NOT see was controlled demolition,
>
> So you know what they saw and they didn't?
THEY SUPORT ME, you stupid piece of shit. NONE OF THEM says they saw
controlled demolition explosives going off...NONE. This is a proven
FACT since none are going off. WATCH the videos, dope. Get a brain.
> Were you hiding in their heads seeing with their eyes and hearing with
> their ears?
Uh, fuckwad, read what they said. NONE saw controlled demolition
explosives going off and NO ONE SAYS they saw any such thing. You are
merely engaging in your patented pathological lying again and
misrepresenting what they say.
> And if "no one" saw CD why did nearly every newscaster from Jennings
> to Dan Rather comment "looks just like so many old buildings that
> we've seen demolished?"
A comment by a newscaster does not magically transport your non-
existent silent and invisible explosives into existence, shit for
brains. LEARN WHAT A FUCKIN' SIMILE IS!! You are truly the most stupid
individual posting to usenet today.
> You are blind.
Of the irony.
> >which is proven to be a
> > physical impossibility.
>
> No, liar, nothing of the sort has been "proven impossible" by you or
> anyone else.
Well, sorry to disappoint you and your Jew-hating dreams of workd
domination, but yes, it most certainly AHS been proven conclusively to
be physically impossible. There is NO SUCH THIGN as silent and
invisible explosives.
> The only thing "proven," as history has shown, is that steel framed
> high rises DON'T "globally collapse" into dust from fires or any other
> type of disaster without help from incendiaries.
That is of course a lie. You think you can just say shit and magically
make it real. Windsor Tower of course proves you wrong. Thousands of
steel structures have collapsed due ONLY to fire and without being hit
by airplanes.
Were you born stupid or did mommy drop you on your stupid kooker head?
AZ Nomad
>Iarnrod wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 9:06 am, hal wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 12, 9:06=A0pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook continued to
>>>> lie:
>>>>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
>>>>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
>>>>> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.fi=
>>>> rst.2.1555218.html
>>>> We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
>>>> they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
>>>> physical impossibility.
>>> So what exactly happened to WTC 7?
>>
>> Structural failure from raging fires set off when WTC1 sent thousands
>> of tons of free-falling steel and flaming debris crashing into it,
>> gouging an 18-23 story hole into its south side. The wall started
>> bulging visibly within a few hours and the firefighters were pulled
>> out because structural experts assessing the situation realized it was
>> unstable and subject to collapse at any moment.
>>
>> It is a proven FACT that there were no controlled demolition
>> explosives used.
> >
>No, that's a matter of probability.
Wrong. It's a fact. Explosives leave indications of their usage.
Nobody has invented a silent traceless exposive.
At least not on this planet. Maybe yours?
Curly Surmudgeon
Which wasn't the claim.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republican Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
The Democratic Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alim Nassor
> On Mar 14, 7:36 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook continued to
> > lie:
>
> > > All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> > > You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
> > > what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
>
> > We know what they saw, kookshit.
>
> But you weren't there standing at their side.
>
> >They already said so.
>
> Liar.
> Why do continue to lie and say people didn't say or see things they
>
> >And one thing
> > they did NOT see was controlled demolition,
>
> So you know what they saw and they didn't?
> Were you hiding in their heads seeing with their eyes and hearing with
> their ears?
> And if "no one" saw CD why did nearly every newscaster from Jennings
> to Dan Rather comment "looks just like so many old buildings that
> we've seen demolished?"
> You are blind.
>
> >which is proven to be a
> > physical impossibility.
>
> No, liar, nothing of the sort has been "proven impossible" by you or
>
> The only thing "proven," as history has shown, is that steel framed
> high rises DON'T "globally collapse" into dust from fires or any other
> type of disaster without help from incendiaries.
fucking horseshit.
Iarnrod
wrote:
>
> > At least not on this planet. Maybe yours?
>
> Which wasn't the claim.
Obviously, since no controlled demolition explosives were seen or
heard at collapse initiation by anyone watching the events or looking
at the videos or live at the scene, then if you are going to insist
that this was a controlled demolition you must, ipso facto, be
expressing your belief in silent and invisible explosives.
FACT
Iarnrod
He forgets about all the thousands of steel structures that HAVE
collapsed due ONLY to fire without any airplanes also crashing into
them. He's a kook.
Henry
> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knews... wrote:
>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
>> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
> We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
> they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
> physical impossibility.
You nut jobs sure do spew a lot of stupid, blatant, and
easily exposed kook lies. Thanks for making the job of
your many betters so easy and enjoyable, ironhead... <chuckle>
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Explosions
Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories
The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many
recollections of the sights and sounds of explosions. The excerpts on
this page describe perceptions of the South Tower collapse, except where
noted otherwise.
Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just
remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they
blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around
like a belt, all these explosions.
Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times
Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We
were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun,
but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that
-- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We
heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is
coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
...
We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were
talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud
explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At
that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me,
knocked my helmet off.
Interview, , New York Times
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I
guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell
on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's
the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a
secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was
an explosion.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit,
because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation
explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and
then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a
second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times
Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general,
everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when
[the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then
the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was
scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where
my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in
time.
Interview, 12/04/01, New York Times
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from
building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there
were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We
realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors
collapsing to where the plane had hit.
...
You did hear the explosions [when the North Tower came down]. Of course
after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like
in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you
kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you
were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now
you're very familiar with it.
Interview, 01/25/02, New York Times
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start
walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up,
from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I
thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off.
The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody
who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and
and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are
they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I
turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion
and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage
again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started
running behind them, and we get to the door.
Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World
Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It
appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials
shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay
before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times
James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
A guy started scremaing to run. When I got underneath the north bridge I
looked back and you heard it, I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu.
Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of
the floors before it actually collapsed.
Interview, 12/30/01, New York Times
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two
started to come down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
After a while we were looking up at the tower, and all of a sudden
someone said it's starting to come down.
...
This would be the first one.
...
This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like
it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to
pancake one on top of the other.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each
popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out
of the building and then it would just go all around the building on
both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the
explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all
around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise
and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of
fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted
explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see
two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor
blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on
the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there,
it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and
realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the
windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew
out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming
off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole
thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
Anyway, with that I was listening, and there was an incredibly loud
rumbling. I never got to look up. People started running for the
entrances to the parking garages. They started running for the
entrances. I started running without ever looking up. The roar became
tremendous. I fell on the way to the parking garages. Debris was
starting to fall all around me. I got up, I got into the parking
garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an
explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there. The Vista
International Hotel was my first impression, that they had blown it up.
I never got to see the World Trade Center coming down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I
heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two
towers was starting to come down.
...
When the dust started to settle, I headed back down towards the World
Trade Center and I guess I came close to arriving at the corner of Vesey
and West again where we started to hear the second roar. That was the
north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and
myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive -
bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved
wrong.
...
The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing
that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made. As I
said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's
about it. Any questions?
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some
people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer
of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks
when they show you those implosions on TV. I would have to say for three
or four seconds anyway, maybe longer. I was just watching. It was
interesting to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the cloud
of black material. It reminded me of the 10 commandments when the green
clouds come down on the street. The black cloud was coming down faster
than the building, so whatever was coming down was going to hit the
street and it was pretty far out. You knew it wasn't coming right down.
Judging from where people were jumping before that, this cloud was much
further.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very
close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.
...
So now both towers have been hit by a plane. The north tower was
burning. So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of
the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both
sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of
the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said,
like the top of a volcano.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
North Tower:
John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because
he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as
I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like
three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and
ran north.
Interview, 01/09/02, New York Times
Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is
with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but
for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the
Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw
low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never
mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level
flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I
thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have
been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw
a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you
mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I
thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye
level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way.
I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but
somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
That's basically where we were. Then a large explosion took place. In my
estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not
know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off. I was, I
believe, ahead of the rest of the firefighters and officers there. I
made it to the corner, and I took about four running steps this way when
you could feel the rush of the wind coming at you. I believed that that
was a huge fireball coming at the time.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]
We came out from 90 West, made a left, headed east, and right when we
got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that's when I heard the
building collapse.
First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was bomb on
the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.
...
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of
noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up
speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
Interview, 12/26/01, New York Times
Art Lakiotes -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Safety Command]
Tower one now comes down. Same thing but this time some of us take off
straight down West Street, because we realized later on, subconsciously
we wanted to be near buildings. We all thought it was secondary
explosives or more planes or whatever.
Interview, 12/03/01, New York Times
John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were walking into darkness. As we walked through those revolving
doors, that's when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I
felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my
mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back
behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just
blew past me. It blew past me it seemed for a long time. In my mind I
was saying what the hell is this and when is it going to stop? Then it
finally stopped, that pressure which I thought was a concussion of an
explosion. It turns out it was the down pressure wind of the floors
collapsing on top of each other. At that point everything went black,
and then the collapse came. It just rained on top of us. Everything
came. It rained debris forever.
Interview, 12/12/01, New York Times
Julio Marrero -- E.M.T. (F.D.N.Y.)
I was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I must have been about ten
feet away from her and she couldn't even hear me, because the building
was so loud, the explosion, that she couldn't even hear me. I just saw
everybody running; and she saw us running, and she took off behind us.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Orlando Martinez -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
There was an explosion and after we started running, I was able to make
it to Chambers and West, where I only saw one EMT, EMT Vega. She is new
here. She was the only EMT I saw from the station and with all the cops
and everybody else running, rescue workers. I grabbed her and I said
just stay with me. We will try to get out of here.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times
Linda McCarthy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
So when that one went down. I thought the plane was exploding, or
another plane hit. I had no idea it was coming down. But I couldn't see
it gone, because I couldn't see it really in the first place with all
the smoke.
Interview, 11/28/01, New York Times
James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler
exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is
coming at us, so we're running. Everyone is, firemen, PD, everyone is
running away from the World Trade Center, up Vessey Street. This is
North End, we was running around Vessey and around North end to get away
from the first smoke.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the
building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops.
Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the
building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Interview, 12/11/01, New York Times
Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the
big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the
north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that
happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out.
Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the
building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom
boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At
the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom
boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___,
that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of
a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with
the train coming at you.
Interview, 12/05/01, New York Times
Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]
When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and
someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all
the windows domino -- you know, dominoeing up and then come down. We
were right in front of 6, so we started running and how are you going to
outrun the World Trade Center? So we threw our tools and I dove under a
rig.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an
explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it
was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane
exploding, whatever.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Juan Rios -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I was in the back waiting, you know, so we could wait for patients and I
was hooking up the regulator to the O-2, when I hear people screaming
and a loud explosion, and I heard like "sssssssss..." the dust like
"sssssssss..." So I come out of the bus, and I look and I see a big
cloud of dust and debris coming from the glass...
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Michael Ober -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air,
and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- but it
looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building
was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely
outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it. I just never thought
they would ever come down, so I didn't think they were coming down. I
just froze and stood there looking at it.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Mike Mullan walked one flight up, and then the most horrendous thing
happened. That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous
explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook. Everything went black.
The wind rushed, very slowly [sound], all the dust, all the -- and
everything went dark.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and
that's when that building collapsed.
...
It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see
professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and
then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because
I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I
saw the building coming down.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were
just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the
south tower, which, according to this map, this exposure just blew out
the flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor
after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when
it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked
like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
Interview, 12/10/01, New York Times
Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up
above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower
tilt, start to twist and lean.
...
I was assisting in pulling more people out from debris, when I heard the
second tower explode. When I tried to evacuate the area, by running up
Fulton, got halfway up.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white
powder, papers, flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few minutes.
It kind of dissipated.
...
That's when we heard this massive explosion and I saw this thing rolling
towards us. It looked like a fireball and then thick, thick black smoke.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The best I can remember, we were just operating there, trying to help
out and do the best we could. Then we heard a loud explosion or what
sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start
coming down. Crazy.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could
hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on
top of each other as they were falling. It was spaced apart in the
beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I
will never forget.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times
Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in
that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick
glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large
section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an
explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had
to go.
...
Within a few moments, I regrouped with Bruce Medjuck and I asked him to
tell them on the radio to send us MTA buses to get people out. That
didn't happen. But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up
which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the
- what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
Interview, 10/30/01, New York Times
David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this
is when the second tower started coming down.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The next thing I heard was Pete say what the f___ is this? And as my
eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,
somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a
secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the
building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to
collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the
floor that let go.
Interview, 10/23/01, New York Times
Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple of seconds
and all of a sudden you just heard it, it almost actually that day
sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or
eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just
actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of
just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us.
...
At that point were were kind of standing on the street and I looked to
my left and actually I noticed the tower was down. I didn't even know
that it was when we were in there. It just seemed like a huge explosion.
Interview, 01/17/02, New York Times
Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Our guy went in with 13 truck, and he was coming down with the guy from
13 truck to bring the elevator to us, and when he was either going up or
coming down the elevator, that's when the south tower collapsed, and it
sounded like a bunch of explosions. You heard like loud booms, but I
guess it was all just stuff coming down, and then we got covered with
rubble and dust, and I thought we'd actually fallen through the floor
into like the PATH tubes, because it was so dark you couldn't see
anything, and from there it was a little hazy from there on.
Interview, 01/10/02, New York Times
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was
coming down right on top of us, so we ran up West Street. We ran a
little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud and we hid behind a
white Suburban.
...
Oh, when we came out of the building and we were walking across West
Street when we first got out of the building, we're walking across the
street and all you heard was like bombs going off above your head. You
couldn't see it. It was just cloudy. And we found out later it was the
military jets. That was an eerie sound. You couldn't see it and all you
heard was like a "boom" and it just kept going. We couldn't see 50 feet
above our head because of the dust. So we didn't know if it was bombs
going off or whatever, but we didn't want to stay there.
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Iarnrod
> Ironhead amused its many betters with:
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knews... wrote:
> >> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> >> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
> >> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
> > We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
> > they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
> > physical impossibility.
>
> You nut jobs sure do spew a lot of stupid, blatant, and
> easily exposed kook lies.
That's just what we were saying about you at our morning meeting,
nutjob!
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Noted that none of the people you cite, as I have been trying to tell
you, saw any controlled demolition explosives going off. Your claim of
course has been proven to be physically impossible.
Hint for Hankie: A loud noise is not necessarily an explosive.
<chuckle>
The cleaning chemicals have affected your "brain."
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> fucking horseshit.
Pervert.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Explosive FACTS, yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFyy4Yj-XF4
knews4...@yahoo.com
Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
collapsed from fire.
AllYou!
news:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
So why have you never ventured a guess as to why every single
significant building code requires all structural steel members to
be fireproofed?
Michael Moroney
>> Obviously, since no controlled demolition explosives were seen or
>> heard at collapse initiation by anyone watching the events or looking
>> at the videos or live at the scene, then if you are going to insist
>> that this was a controlled demolition you must, ipso facto, be
>> expressing your belief in silent and invisible explosives.
>>
>> FACT
>Explosive FACTS, yes.
[snip kooklink]
Yet you *still* refuse to address the fact that there were NO explosions
consistent with controlled demolition, whatsoever. NONE. Sure there were
plenty of rumbles and bangs as the buildings failed. I am talking
something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ but much
LOUDER.
Do you agree with the following from the NIST report from the WTC7
collapse that the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure
"would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of
at least half a mile." ?
Now tell us, how fucking LOUD a controlled demolition charge would need to
be to sever just ONE of the columns that support a 110 storey tower?
Tell us, why didn't any witnesses hear such a fucking loud BANG? Why
didn't any of the thousands of videos record them? Or we back to the
kooktarded idea of silent, invisible explosives?
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
> >> Obviously, since no controlled demolition explosives were seen or
> >> heard at collapse initiation by anyone watching the events or looking
> >> at the videos or live at the scene, then if you are going to insist
> >> that this was a controlled demolition you must, ipso facto, be
> >> expressing your belief in silent and invisible explosives.
>
> >> FACT
> >Explosive FACTS, yes.
>
> [snip kooklink]
>
> Yet you *still* refuse to address the fact that there were NO explosions
> consistent with controlled demolition, whatsoever.
So the other explosions are not consistent with the building
collapsing as the witness state?
>NONE. Sure there were
> plenty of rumbles and bangs as the buildings failed.
And plenty before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6UgPODo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0&feature=PlayList&p=DF91C15452AA6DCF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3
But you'll just continue to ignore that.
>I am talking
> something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQbut much
> LOUDER.
>
Yet incendiaries don't have to explode.
> Do you agree with the following from the NIST report from the WTC7
> collapse that the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure
> "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of
> at least half a mile." ?
>
No.
> Now tell us, how fucking LOUD a controlled demolition charge would need to
> be to sever just ONE of the columns that support a 110 storey tower?
>
Doesn't have to be explosive.
> Tell us, why didn't any witnesses hear such a fucking loud BANG?
You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s
>Why
> didn't any of the thousands of videos record them?
Thousands?
There are a few which got them.
>Or we back to the
> kooktarded idea of silent, invisible explosives?
Incendiaries don't explode.
They burn and melt steel like a hot knife though butter.
Iarnrod
repeated disproven LIES:
> On Mar 15, 6:32 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2:22 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
This begs the question of course that the WTC did not collapse only
from fire. PLANE CRASHES and/or IMPACT DAMAGE on all three.
You are so stupid you are beyond all stupidity.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
And why have you NEVER ventured to guess why the investigations are
REQUIRED BY LAW to look for incendiaries YET EVEN WHEN THERE IS
EVIDENCE FOR THEM IN THE REPORTS NONE DO?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
AllYou!
news:0195db1e-1d9b-449c...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
No and. Just answer the question.
> why have you NEVER ventured to guess why the investigations
> are
> REQUIRED BY LAW to look for incendiaries YET EVEN WHEN THERE IS
> EVIDENCE FOR THEM IN THE REPORTS NONE DO?
The premise of your question is completely false.
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
Henry
> On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, Knews wrote:
>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
>> collapsed from fire.
> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building and
it remained standing, nut job. That means it didn't
collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
As always, here's proof that you're lying and being
stupid again.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> This begs the question of course that the WTC did not collapse only
> from fire. PLANE CRASHES and/or IMPACT DAMAGE on all three.
No plane impact and no significant structural damage to
WTC7, nut job. You need to keep up with your lies. NIST
was forced to dump its lie that WTC7 suffered structural
damage when it became clear that there was no evidence to
support it. As always, here's proof that you're lying and
being stupid again. <g>
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
Michael Moroney
>Ironhead fumed, spewed, spittled and lied:
>> On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, Knews wrote:
>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
>>> collapsed from fire.
>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
> The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building and
>it remained standing, nut job. That means it didn't
>collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
You lie. Why do you lie?
The Windsor Tower was of combination construction. The core was reinforced
concrete, the outer part was steel. The outer, steel portion collapsed
completely in the fire, the concrete core remained standing.
It was actually an excellent side-by-side example of the superiority of
reinforced concrete in a fire. One fire. Steel frame collapses. Concrete
remains standing. About the best direct comparison example you'll see.
In fact, a concrete company even used the Windsor Tower as an example of
the superiority of reinforced concrete over steel in a fire in an
advertisement.
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 15, 11:36 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
>> >> Obviously, since no controlled demolition explosives were seen or
>> >> heard at collapse initiation by anyone watching the events or looking
>> >> at the videos or live at the scene, then if you are going to insist
>> >> that this was a controlled demolition you must, ipso facto, be
>> >> expressing your belief in silent and invisible explosives.
>>
>> >> FACT
>> >Explosive FACTS, yes.
>>
>> [snip kooklink]
>>
>Replace eye witness testimony.
Yet somehow, it didn't get recorded on all those videos!
>> Yet you *still* refuse to address the fact that there were NO explosions
>> consistent with controlled demolition, whatsoever.
>So the other explosions are not consistent with the building
>collapsing as the witness state?
No they weren't. Did you watch the video of the Landmark Tower implosion?
I didn't think so. You probably aren't allowed to watch it.
>>NONE. Sure there were
>> plenty of rumbles and bangs as the buildings failed.
>And plenty before.
And once again, ones before the collapse couldn't have brought the
building down unless it was _immediately_ before. (the building starts
falling exactly when the explosion happens)
>>I am talking
>> something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ but much
>> LOUDER.
>>
>Yet incendiaries don't have to explode.
Correct. They just have to burn hotter than hell, making it look like
someone stuck a bunch of suns inside the towers. (Ever see how BRIGHT
thermite is?) And there's still the big problem that thermite doesn't
cut sideways, it responds to gravity -- DOWNWARDS.
>> Do you agree with the following from the NIST report from the WTC7
>> collapse that the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure
>> "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of
>> at least half a mile." ?
>>
>No.
Oh that's right, I forgot you believe in "Hushaboom" silent explosives.
Sorry, but "Hushaboom" silent explosives is from a cartoon.
>> Now tell us, how fucking LOUD a controlled demolition charge would need to
>> be to sever just ONE of the columns that support a 110 storey tower?
>>
>Doesn't have to be explosive.
Tell us, how big and BRIGHT is a charge of thermite big enough to cut
that same column going to be? (Assuming you solve the problem of thermite
not working sideways!)
>> Tell us, why didn't any witnesses hear such a fucking loud BANG?
>You mean like this?
No, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
>>Why
>> didn't any of the thousands of videos record them?
>Thousands?
>There are a few which got them.
Nope. Not one. And it should be on ALL of them.
>>Or we back to the
>> kooktarded idea of silent, invisible explosives?
>Incendiaries don't explode.
>They burn and melt steel like a hot knife though butter.
Nope, they didn't go back to the kooktarded silent explosives, but to the
kooktarded invisible lightless magic thermite (that magically works
sideways!).
Strabo
You've used this example a hundred times but it's not comparable
to the WTC.
It was a reinforced concrete building with perimeter beams. 1) The fire
forced moisture out of the concrete removing support from the rods and
2) the concrete crumbled. Even still it was a partial collapse.
Now don't use this example again.
"The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio
Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete
central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle
slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional
360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the
perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in
accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction
The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer
structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and
between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding
system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The
perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th
and 3rd Floor levels."
Iarnrod
You make several blatant LIES here. 1) Investiators are NOT required
to look for incendiaries. I shoved that FACT up your ass last week. 2)
There is ZERO evidence of incendiaries at the WTC nor did incendiaries
have anything to do with the coillapse.
You're still batting 0.000, knowsknothing.
Iarnrod
<9-11liar...@birdbrains.org> continued to amuse his many betters by
flailing around with disproven claims:
> Might Iarnrod kicked this fool's stupid kooker ass up one side of usenet and down tthe ofher with PROVEN TRUTH:
> > On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, knowsknothing wrote:
> >> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
> >> collapsed from fire.
> > Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
> The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building
Ooops for you, yes it was.
Maybe you were in a drug induced stupos again and MISSED THE FACT that
your fellow kooks stupidly parade Windsor Tower around as proof that,
as a steel framed building on fire, it showed such b uildigns cannot
collapse. Oh you poor kook!
The FACT is that it was comprised of TWO types of framing; the LOWER
floors below 17 and the rear service core above 17 were framed with
reinforced concrete, which of course remained standing. THE UPPER
FLOORS 17 and above were all STEEL FRAMED and THAT FRAME COLLAPSED
COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY due ONLY to fire without plane crashes.
OOOOOPS for Hankie the Kook!
> it remained standing, nut job.
Ummm, Earth to Fired Janitor Boy: What you see remianing is REINFORCED
CONCRETE FRAME. What is missing is THE ENTIRE STEEL FRAMED PORTION,
which of course collapsed due ONLY to fire.
> That means it didn't
> collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
> As always, here's proof that you're lying and being
> stupid again.
I proved I am correct and you are wrong.
You're amazing, Hankie. You haven't even been right accidentally.
> > This begs the question of course that the WTC did not collapse only
> > from fire. PLANE CRASHES and/or IMPACT DAMAGE on all three.
>
> No plane impact and no significant structural damage to
> WTC7, nut job.
Sorry, Hankie, but there was just as much damage and possibly more to
WTC7 than to the toweres from when WTC1's collapse sent thousands of
tons of free falling steel girdes and flaming debris crashing into it.
Maybe you don't watch the teevee news or get a paper, but your many
betters who have actually followed this case and not made up their
minds on Day One based on their politics know what happened.
<chuckle>
> You need to keep up with your lies. NIST
> was forced to dump its lie that WTC7 suffered structural
> damage when it became clear that there was no evidence to
> support it.
A lie of course. It did no such thing. NIST merely said that the
severe structural damage isn't what caused the collapse.
> As always, here's proof that you're lying and
> being stupid again. <g>
>
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
>
> Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
> collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
> structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
> of WTC 7."
WOW! Thanks for saving me the trouble of digging up my own cite to
prove you wrong; YOUR CITE proves you wrong. As evidence for your
kooker klaim that "NIST was forced to dump its lie that WTC7 suffered
structural damage," youa ctually had the brain damaged impulse to post
a cite that contradicts that, to wit: "the report notes that "while
debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the
resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
TOO FUNNY, Hankie!! As evidence that WTC7 suffered no structural
fdamage, you give us a cite that notes that it did suffer structural
damage! BWAHAHHAAAHHAAAA!!!
You must be huffin' a bucketload of cleaning chemicals tonight!
Iarnrod
Correct. The WTC towers were also severely damaged by impacts from
500+ mph fully fueled jetliners!
Thanks, kook!
> It was a reinforced concrete building with perimeter beams.
BZZZZZT! Wrong. It had reinforced concrete framing in part of it and
STEEL FRAMING in another. The ENTIRE STEEL FRAMED PORTION COLLAPSED
DUE ONLY TO FIRE. without a plane crashing into it, dope.
> 1) The fire
> forced moisture out of the concrete removing support from the rods and
> 2) the concrete crumbled. Even still it was a partial collapse.
You nitwit, THE CONCRETE PART IS WHAT REMAINED STANDING.
Gawd, you're stupid.
> Now don't use this example again.
Why? You don't like TRUTH being shoved so afr up your stupid kooker
ass? Sorry. But your many betters will continue to operate in the
reality-based world.
> "The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio
> Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete
> central core.
"Central core," you stupid moron.
Plus the lower 16 floors were concvrete framed. All from 17 above
except the central core was STEEL FRAMING and ALL OF IT collapsed due
ONLY to the fire.
You lose again, kook. It's your fate, as long as you choose to embrace
delusions and reject reality.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
You can't be serious.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
"The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building,
but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two
fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very
wide extent of the fire:
* The lack of a sprinkler system
* Incorrect installation of spandrels
* The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain
6
The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming
fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts
of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It
also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and
partial.
Estimated time frame of collapses
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor
gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle
section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor
collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire
broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast
with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total
explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. "
The WTC was fireproofed.
The jet hits could not have removed significant amounts of
insulation.Experiments were done with shotgun blasts.
The fires weren't hot enough to really even "soften" 47 core columns
and 200 or so outer ones.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Iarnrod
Ooooops, get yourself another stopwatch, koker!
> and the total
> explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. "
How did they do that without any explosives?
BWHAAAHAAAA!!!
> The WTC was fireproofed.
> The jet hits could not have removed significant amounts of
> insulation.
Huh? Why not?
> Experiments were done with shotgun blasts.
BWAHAHAAAHAHAAA!!!! A shotgun blast compared with a 757 and 767 at
500+ mph!! TOO FUCKIN' FUNNY!!
THAT is the STUPIDEST post you've made today, knowsknothing!
> The fires weren't hot enough to really even "soften" 47 core columns
> and 200 or so outer ones.
Yes they were.
And Windsor Tower conclusively proves your stupid claim wrong that no
steel framed building had ever collapsed due only to fire.
WTC didn't collapse due only to fire, dickweed. There were these plane
crashes...
Strabo
I'll tell but then you will all have to go away.
AllYou!
news:788b969c-fbbf-4e41...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
You can post all of the irrelevant links you wish. But if you had
any confidence in your position that steel buildings are immune from
failure due to fire, you'd tell us why every major building code
requires that steel to be fireproofed.
Iarnrod
> Innews:788b969c-fbbf-4e41...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
> any confidence in your position that steel buildings are immune from
> failure due to fire, you'd tell us why every major building code
> requires that steel to be fireproofed.
He'll have to figure out a lie to fit that "scenario." Give him time
to light up his crack pipe and get to "work" on it!
knews4...@yahoo.com
That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
The Windsor was not.
> He'll have to figure out a lie to fit that "scenario." Give him time
> to light up his crack pipe and get to "work" on it!
Hey dim bulb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
Iarnrod
in delusional denial and pathological lying:
> On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 9:07 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > Innews:788b969c-fbbf-4e41...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> > > >> Innews:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > >>> On Mar 15, 6:32 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Mar 15, 2:22 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > >>>>>> On Mar 14, 7:36 am, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook arm-waved in delusional denial and pathological lying:
As are ALL steel framed buildings due to their proven propensity to
fail due to exposure to fire.
Are you so stupid that you dont' realize you just undermined all your
claims?
> That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
Sorry dearie, but the jet impacts dislodged the fireproofing,
especiually from the floor struts, which is where collapse initiation
is centered. FACT.
> The Windsor was not.
AND THEREFORE IT COLLAPSED DUE ONLY TO FIRE!!
Holy SHIT, dope, you just contradicted yourself again! You've always
"claimed" Windsor wasn't steel and didn't collapse (you were wrong on
both counts!)
> > He'll have to figure out a lie to fit that "scenario." Give him time
> > to light up his crack pipe and get to "work" on it!
>
> Hey dim bulb.
What? DO you need a match for your crack pipe? BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
Let us know when you figure out a new set of lies for us!! Can't wait!
knews4...@yahoo.com
non-logic and lies in a post so fast she couldn't have even watched
the video links:
> On Mar 15, 10:15 pm, knowsitwa...@truth.com gave many links which loonyrod snips:
> > On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Ioonyrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> spewed:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 9:07 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Innews:788b969c-fbbf-4e41...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > > > On Mar 15, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> > > > >> Innews:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > > >>> On Mar 15, 6:32 am, Ioonyrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>lied and snpped and lied and snipped :
> > > > >> So why have you never ventured a guess as to why every single
> > > > >> significant building code requires all structural steel members
> > > > >> to be fireproofed?
>
> > > > > You can't be serious.
>
> > > > You can post all of the irrelevant links you wish. But if you had
> > > > any confidence in your position that steel buildings are immune from
> > > > failure due to fire, you'd tell us why every major building code
> > > > requires that steel to be fireproofed.
>
> > The WTC buildings were fireproofed.
>
> As are ALL steel framed buildings due to their proven propensity to
> fail due to exposure to fire.
>
> Are you so stupid that you dont' realize you just undermined all your
> claims?
>
The WTC towers had insulation.
Windsor Tower was lacking.
Windsor tower melted and side fell off.
Doesn't undermine anything except in your twisted mind.
> > That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
>
> Sorry dearie, but the jet impacts dislodged the fireproofing,
Lie.
It was tested.
The jet impacts wouldn't dislodge enough.
Shotgun blasts didn't.
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/071106_nist_report.html
> especiually from the floor struts, which is where collapse initiation
> is centered. FACT.
>
No.
For the South tower to break off sideways and the North tower antenna
to drop first the failures had to be the core columns.
Sinple observation shows this.
> > The Windsor was not.
>
> AND THEREFORE IT COLLAPSED DUE ONLY TO FIRE!!
>
It did not collapse anything like the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2_srNT8-Ow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-EeaHOunw
> Holy SHIT, dope, you just contradicted yourself again!
Liar.
You keep claiming videos make the opposite case of what they say and
then you snip them.
You are just a loser.
>You've always
> "claimed" Windsor wasn't steel and didn't collapse (you were wrong on
> both counts!)
>
I claimed nothing of the sort.
It melted slowly apart after the cement core dried and the floor
anchors broke loose.
18 hour fire.
No fireproofing.
No collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> > > He'll have to figure out a lie to fit that "scenario." Give him time
> > > to light up his crack pipe and get to "work" on it!
>
> > Hey dim bulb.
>
> What? DO you need a match for your crack pipe? BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
>
> Let us know when you figure out a new set of lies for us!! Can't wait!
Can't beat you.
You are King Liar.
"There's three things to remember: claim everything, explain nothing,
deny everything."--Prescott Bush, Father to G. H.W. Bush, Grandfather
of Shrub
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
min 1:15, top down demolition.
min 1:34, bodies pulverized
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
William Colby, Director CIA
Iarnrod
in delusional denial and pathological lying:
> > On Mar 15, 10:15 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook arm-waved in delusional denial and pathological lying:
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 9:07 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Innews:788b969c-fbbf-4e41...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
in delusional denial and pathological lying:
>
> > > > > >> Innews:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
in delusional denial and pathological lying:
>
You must have passed out from crack overdose when we had all the pix
of the Windsor Tower, nutbag.
Get off drugs. Your parents will be so happy.
> > > > > >> So why have you never ventured a guess as to why every single
> > > > > >> significant building code requires all structural steel members
> > > > > >> to be fireproofed?
>
> > > > > > You can't be serious.
>
> > > > > You can post all of the irrelevant links you wish. But if you had
> > > > > any confidence in your position that steel buildings are immune from
> > > > > failure due to fire, you'd tell us why every major building code
> > > > > requires that steel to be fireproofed.
>
> > > The WTC buildings were fireproofed.
>
> > As are ALL steel framed buildings due to their proven propensity to
> > fail due to exposure to fire.
>
> > Are you so stupid that you dont' realize you just undermined all your
> > claims?
>
> The WTC towers had insulation.
Yep, and still it collapsed. Maybe you missed the whole plane-crashy
part? Do you think it was "insulated" against a 500+ mph airplane
impact? <snicker>
> Windsor Tower was lacking.
Sure was. That's why it's a great example of a steel framed building
that collapsed due ONLY to fire and contradicts all your claims
otherwise.
Thanks for reminding us of your ignominious defeat on that point. I
especially enjoyed shoving that up your stupid kooker ass.
> Windsor tower melted and side fell off.
It did not melt. The steel framed structure collapsed. Entirely.
Proving you wrong.
> Doesn't undermine anything except in your twisted mind.
It does, of course, undermine every false claim you've made about
steel-framed buildings not collapsing in fires.
You proved yourself wrong. Thanks.
<sips Victory Iced Tea>
> > > That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
>
> > Sorry dearie, but the jet impacts dislodged the fireproofing,
>
> Lie.
Truth.
Tell us what cartoon magic spray-on insulation on your planet Kookton
can withstand 500+ mph impacts by a 190-ton jetliner? <chuckle>
> It was tested.
And shown to have dislodged.
> The jet impacts wouldn't dislodge enough.
Yes it would and did, of course. This is not even remotley in dispute.
> Shotgun blasts didn't.
BWAAAHAAHAHAAHHAAAA!!! "SHOTGUN BLASTS!!" Too fuckin' funny.
Look, kooker, if THIS is the type of "independent new investigation"
you asswipes wanna do -- firing a shotgun at steel beam insulation to
"prove" a 500+ mph 190-ton jetliner wouldn't scratch it, I think just
maybe we OUGHT to fund it just for the pure komedy gold laughs it
would provide!
Har har har har HAR HAR!!!!
> > especially from the floor struts, which is where collapse initiation
> > is centered. FACT.
>
> No.
Yes. Proven FACT that cannot be denied.
> For the South tower to break off sideways and the North tower antenna
> to drop first the failures had to be the core columns.
Wrong, as proven by NIST. Sorry. There is simply no basis in fact for
your idiotic claim.
> Sinple observation shows this.
Well, you have the "simple" part down all right, but ALL observation
shows that it was the floor struts warping and puling inward on the
perimeter girders that tilted the upper block and converted the
massive potential energy in static loading into dynamic loading that
gravity pulled down onto the intact floors, of course crushing them to
ground in a progressive collapse. FACT.
> > > The Windsor was not.
>
> > AND THEREFORE IT COLLAPSED DUE ONLY TO FIRE!!
>
> It did not collapse anything like the WTC.
That was not the test,m you stupid fucking idiot. Windsor was not
struck by an airplane or by anything. The Windsor example proves
beyond doubt that fire ALONE can collapse a steel framed office
building. We already knew of course that fire destroys steel framed
structures of all kinds because thousands have failed.
Why would you expect a building not struck by a 500+ mph jetliner to
collapse exactly like the WTC? Explain your idiotic assumption.
> > Holy SHIT, dope, you just contradicted yourself again!
>
> Liar.
Nope, you contradicted yourself five times just in this newest post.
Are you schizo?
> You keep claiming videos make the opposite case of what they say and
> then you snip them.
They say exactly what I explain to your stupid kooker ass.
> You are just a loser.
Then how come I won?
> >You've always
> > "claimed" Windsor wasn't steel and didn't collapse (you were wrong on
> > both counts!)
>
> I claimed nothing of the sort.
Yes you did.
> It melted slowly apart
It did not "melt," you stupid fuck.
> after the cement core dried and the floor
> anchors broke loose.
> 18 hour fire.
> No fireproofing.
Steel frame, fire alone, total collaspe of ENTIRE steel frame. Proves
you wrong and me right.
> No collapse
Global collapse of ENTIRE steel framed portion.
> > > > He'll have to figure out a lie to fit that "scenario." Give him time
> > > > to light up his crack pipe and get to "work" on it!
>
> > > Hey dim bulb.
>
> > What? DO you need a match for your crack pipe? BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
>
> > Let us know when you figure out a new set of lies for us!! Can't wait!
>
> Can't beat you.
I know you can't. Why do you even try? I thought you "plonked" me!
BWAHAAHAHAAAHHA!!
> You are King Liar.
You are Cleopatra, Queen of Denial!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> I better read this.
> http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
Iarnrod
knews4...@yahoo.com
AllYou!
news:8390be35-565a-4d33...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The WTC buildings were fireproofed.
And why do you think that is required of all such buildings in NY,
and every other major city in the world?
> That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
The insulation was blown off with the severe impact of the plane
crashes.
AllYou!
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:22:09 -0700, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > fucking horseshit.
>
> Pervert.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Republican Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
> The Democratic Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't knock it.........
Henry
> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knews... wrote:
>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
>> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
> We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
> they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
> physical impossibility.
You nut jobs sure do spew a lot of stupid, blatant, and
easily exposed kook lies. Thanks for making the job of
your many betters so easy and enjoyable, ironhead... <chuckle>
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Explosions
Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories
The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many
recollections of the sights and sounds of explosions. The excerpts on
this page describe perceptions of the South Tower collapse, except where
noted otherwise.
Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just
remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they
blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around
like a belt, all these explosions.
Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times
Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We
were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun,
but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that
-- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We
heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is
coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
...
We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were
talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud
explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At
that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me,
knocked my helmet off.
Interview, , New York Times
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I
guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell
on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's
the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a
secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was
an explosion.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit,
because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation
explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and
then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a
second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times
Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general,
everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when
[the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then
the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was
scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where
my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in
time.
Interview, 12/04/01, New York Times
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from
building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there
were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We
realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors
collapsing to where the plane had hit.
...
You did hear the explosions [when the North Tower came down]. Of course
after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like
in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you
kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you
were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now
you're very familiar with it.
Interview, 01/25/02, New York Times
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start
walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up,
from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I
thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off.
The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody
who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and
and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are
they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I
turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion
and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage
again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started
running behind them, and we get to the door.
Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World
Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It
appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials
shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay
before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times
James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
A guy started scremaing to run. When I got underneath the north bridge I
looked back and you heard it, I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu.
Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of
the floors before it actually collapsed.
Interview, 12/30/01, New York Times
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two
started to come down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
After a while we were looking up at the tower, and all of a sudden
someone said it's starting to come down.
...
This would be the first one.
...
This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like
it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to
pancake one on top of the other.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each
popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out
of the building and then it would just go all around the building on
both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the
explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all
around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise
and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of
fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted
explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see
two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor
blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on
the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there,
it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and
realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the
windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew
out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming
off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole
thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
Anyway, with that I was listening, and there was an incredibly loud
rumbling. I never got to look up. People started running for the
entrances to the parking garages. They started running for the
entrances. I started running without ever looking up. The roar became
tremendous. I fell on the way to the parking garages. Debris was
starting to fall all around me. I got up, I got into the parking
garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an
explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there. The Vista
International Hotel was my first impression, that they had blown it up.
I never got to see the World Trade Center coming down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I
heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two
towers was starting to come down.
...
When the dust started to settle, I headed back down towards the World
Trade Center and I guess I came close to arriving at the corner of Vesey
and West again where we started to hear the second roar. That was the
north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and
myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive -
bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved
wrong.
...
The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing
that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made. As I
said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's
about it. Any questions?
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some
people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer
of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks
when they show you those implosions on TV. I would have to say for three
or four seconds anyway, maybe longer. I was just watching. It was
interesting to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the cloud
of black material. It reminded me of the 10 commandments when the green
clouds come down on the street. The black cloud was coming down faster
than the building, so whatever was coming down was going to hit the
street and it was pretty far out. You knew it wasn't coming right down.
Judging from where people were jumping before that, this cloud was much
further.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very
close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.
...
So now both towers have been hit by a plane. The north tower was
burning. So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of
the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both
sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of
the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said,
like the top of a volcano.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
North Tower:
John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because
he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as
I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like
three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and
ran north.
Interview, 01/09/02, New York Times
Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is
with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but
for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the
Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw
low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never
mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level
flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I
thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have
been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw
a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you
mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I
thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye
level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way.
I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but
somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
That's basically where we were. Then a large explosion took place. In my
estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not
know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off. I was, I
believe, ahead of the rest of the firefighters and officers there. I
made it to the corner, and I took about four running steps this way when
you could feel the rush of the wind coming at you. I believed that that
was a huge fireball coming at the time.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]
We came out from 90 West, made a left, headed east, and right when we
got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that's when I heard the
building collapse.
First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was bomb on
the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.
...
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of
noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up
speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
Interview, 12/26/01, New York Times
Art Lakiotes -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Safety Command]
Tower one now comes down. Same thing but this time some of us take off
straight down West Street, because we realized later on, subconsciously
we wanted to be near buildings. We all thought it was secondary
explosives or more planes or whatever.
Interview, 12/03/01, New York Times
John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were walking into darkness. As we walked through those revolving
doors, that's when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I
felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my
mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back
behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just
blew past me. It blew past me it seemed for a long time. In my mind I
was saying what the hell is this and when is it going to stop? Then it
finally stopped, that pressure which I thought was a concussion of an
explosion. It turns out it was the down pressure wind of the floors
collapsing on top of each other. At that point everything went black,
and then the collapse came. It just rained on top of us. Everything
came. It rained debris forever.
Interview, 12/12/01, New York Times
Julio Marrero -- E.M.T. (F.D.N.Y.)
I was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I must have been about ten
feet away from her and she couldn't even hear me, because the building
was so loud, the explosion, that she couldn't even hear me. I just saw
everybody running; and she saw us running, and she took off behind us.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Orlando Martinez -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
There was an explosion and after we started running, I was able to make
it to Chambers and West, where I only saw one EMT, EMT Vega. She is new
here. She was the only EMT I saw from the station and with all the cops
and everybody else running, rescue workers. I grabbed her and I said
just stay with me. We will try to get out of here.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times
Linda McCarthy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
So when that one went down. I thought the plane was exploding, or
another plane hit. I had no idea it was coming down. But I couldn't see
it gone, because I couldn't see it really in the first place with all
the smoke.
Interview, 11/28/01, New York Times
James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler
exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is
coming at us, so we're running. Everyone is, firemen, PD, everyone is
running away from the World Trade Center, up Vessey Street. This is
North End, we was running around Vessey and around North end to get away
from the first smoke.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the
building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops.
Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the
building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Interview, 12/11/01, New York Times
Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the
big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the
north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that
happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out.
Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the
building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom
boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At
the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom
boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___,
that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of
a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with
the train coming at you.
Interview, 12/05/01, New York Times
Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]
When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and
someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all
the windows domino -- you know, dominoeing up and then come down. We
were right in front of 6, so we started running and how are you going to
outrun the World Trade Center? So we threw our tools and I dove under a
rig.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an
explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it
was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane
exploding, whatever.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Juan Rios -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I was in the back waiting, you know, so we could wait for patients and I
was hooking up the regulator to the O-2, when I hear people screaming
and a loud explosion, and I heard like "sssssssss..." the dust like
"sssssssss..." So I come out of the bus, and I look and I see a big
cloud of dust and debris coming from the glass...
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Michael Ober -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air,
and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- but it
looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building
was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely
outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it. I just never thought
they would ever come down, so I didn't think they were coming down. I
just froze and stood there looking at it.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Mike Mullan walked one flight up, and then the most horrendous thing
happened. That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous
explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook. Everything went black.
The wind rushed, very slowly [sound], all the dust, all the -- and
everything went dark.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and
that's when that building collapsed.
...
It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see
professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and
then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because
I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I
saw the building coming down.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were
just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the
south tower, which, according to this map, this exposure just blew out
the flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor
after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when
it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked
like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
Interview, 12/10/01, New York Times
Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up
above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower
tilt, start to twist and lean.
...
I was assisting in pulling more people out from debris, when I heard the
second tower explode. When I tried to evacuate the area, by running up
Fulton, got halfway up.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white
powder, papers, flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few minutes.
It kind of dissipated.
...
That's when we heard this massive explosion and I saw this thing rolling
towards us. It looked like a fireball and then thick, thick black smoke.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The best I can remember, we were just operating there, trying to help
out and do the best we could. Then we heard a loud explosion or what
sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start
coming down. Crazy.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could
hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on
top of each other as they were falling. It was spaced apart in the
beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I
will never forget.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times
Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in
that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick
glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large
section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an
explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had
to go.
...
Within a few moments, I regrouped with Bruce Medjuck and I asked him to
tell them on the radio to send us MTA buses to get people out. That
didn't happen. But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up
which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the
- what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
Interview, 10/30/01, New York Times
David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this
is when the second tower started coming down.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The next thing I heard was Pete say what the f___ is this? And as my
eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,
somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a
secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the
building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to
collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the
floor that let go.
Interview, 10/23/01, New York Times
Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple of seconds
and all of a sudden you just heard it, it almost actually that day
sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or
eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just
actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of
just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us.
...
At that point were were kind of standing on the street and I looked to
my left and actually I noticed the tower was down. I didn't even know
that it was when we were in there. It just seemed like a huge explosion.
Interview, 01/17/02, New York Times
Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Our guy went in with 13 truck, and he was coming down with the guy from
13 truck to bring the elevator to us, and when he was either going up or
coming down the elevator, that's when the south tower collapsed, and it
sounded like a bunch of explosions. You heard like loud booms, but I
guess it was all just stuff coming down, and then we got covered with
rubble and dust, and I thought we'd actually fallen through the floor
into like the PATH tubes, because it was so dark you couldn't see
anything, and from there it was a little hazy from there on.
Interview, 01/10/02, New York Times
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was
coming down right on top of us, so we ran up West Street. We ran a
little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud and we hid behind a
white Suburban.
...
Oh, when we came out of the building and we were walking across West
Street when we first got out of the building, we're walking across the
street and all you heard was like bombs going off above your head. You
couldn't see it. It was just cloudy. And we found out later it was the
military jets. That was an eerie sound. You couldn't see it and all you
heard was like a "boom" and it just kept going. We couldn't see 50 feet
above our head because of the dust. So we didn't know if it was bombs
going off or whatever, but we didn't want to stay there.
Henry
>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
>> collapsed from fire.
> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building and
it remained standing, nut job. That means it didn't
collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
As always, here's proof that you're lying and being
stupid again.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> This begs the question of course that the WTC did not collapse only
> from fire. PLANE CRASHES and/or IMPACT DAMAGE on all three.
No plane impact and no significant structural damage to
WTC7, nut job. You need to keep up with your lies. NIST
was forced to dump its lie that WTC7 suffered structural
damage when it became clear that there was no evidence to
support it. As always, here's proof that you're lying and
being stupid again. <g>
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
AllYou!
Henry <9-11...@experts.org> mused:
> Ironhead fumed, spewed, spittled and lied:
>> On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, Knews wrote:
>
>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise"
>>> that collapsed from fire.
>
>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
> The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building
Why don't you or your 'lil buddy here ever try to tell us why you
think that all major building codes require that the steel in all
steel framed buildings must be fireproofed?
Iarnrod
<his usual kooklink to disproven lies>
http://tinyurl.com/knowsknothings-lies
> And the truth will set you free.
Thanks for admitting that you're a lifer with no chance of parole!
BWAHAAAAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!
Iarnrod
Janitor <9-11nutjob...@shikt-for-brains.kook> amused his many betters
with:
> Muighty Iarnrod continued to bounce Hankie around like the kooker toy that he is:
> > On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knews... wrote:
> >> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> >> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never testify as to
> >> what they saw on the WTC sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
> > We know what they saw, kookshit. They already said so. And one thing
> > they did NOT see was controlled demolition, which is proven to be a
> > physical impossibility.
>
> You nut jobs sure do spew a lot of stupid, blatant, and
> easily exposed kook lies.
How come you have been completely impotent when it comes to NAMING
ONE, Hankie? <chuckle>
> Explosions
None of these, of course, are controlled demolition charges going off.
We know this for a plain proven FACT because we have all the videos
and audios of the collapses. Thanks for amusing us, Hankie, with your
claim that whenever anyone hears a loud noise, it’s a “controlled
demolition!” My grandson slammed the door yesterday and it was very
loud. I guess he was doing a “controlled demolition!” (seems that way
sometimes, I’ll give you that much!)
You give us a good display of the lack of “thinking” ability of the
mind of a simpleton, Hankie. Was it the chemicals you ingested on your
janitor shift that damaged you? Maybe you have a worker’s comp claim
going.
<vbg>
Iarnrod
continued to display his mental disabilities:
> Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, Knews wrote:
> >> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
> >> collapsed from fire.
> > Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
> The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building
It was, of course, from floors 17 and up. This is not in dispute, as
the incident stands as testimony to the difference in survivability in
fire between reinforced concrete framing and steel. This is not even
remotely in dispute, Hankie. Are you retarded, thinking you could slip
that lie past your many betters?
> and
> it remained standing, nut job.
So all that steel framing remained in place and merely became
“invisible,” kinda like your cartoon magic “explosives?”
BWAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHHAAAA!!!
> That means it didn't
> collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
It did collapse, if course, in its entirety. All that you see standing
afterward is the reinforce concrete portion of the structural framing;
all of the steel framing completely collapsed. Sucks to be you right
about now, trying to blatantly lie in front of your betters, who of
course know all about this.
> As always, here's proof that you're lying and being
> stupid again.
As always, Hankie’s “proof” proves him wrong!
> > This begs the question of course that the WTC did not collapse only
> > from fire. PLANE CRASHES and/or IMPACT DAMAGE on all three.
>
> No plane impact and no significant structural damage to
> WTC7, nut job.
Wrong, nut job. The correct statement is “no plane impact BUT
significant structural damagfe to WTC7.” It is all verified and shown
on videos and photos, of course, not in dispute. Huge gouge carved out
of the south façade by thousands of tons of free-falling steel girders
and flaming debris. This is fully documented, of course.
> You need to keep up with your lies.
Easy, since I have never lied, the total would be ZERO. I stopped
keeping up with YOUR lies at 2 million.
> NIST
> was forced to dump its lie that WTC7 suffered structural
> damage when it became clear that there was no evidence to
> support it.
BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!! I love this part, where you make a claim and then
post proof that your claim is a lie! NIST did no such thing, of
course, and your cite shows NIST **confirming** the structural damage,
of course.
> As always, here's proof that you're lying and
> being stupid again. <g>
>
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
>
> Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
> collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
> structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
> of WTC 7."
Thank you for reposting proof of your utter defeat without me having
to lift a finger. Not from your cite above, these words: “the
resulting structural damage.”
Your assertion that NIST “dumped its lie that WTC7 suffered structural
damage” is of course proven wrong and contradicted, and my claim is
proven, by your very cite! I couldn’t have exposed you better myself!
<chuckle>
john
But...weren't you arguing that the
structural damage *did* cause the collapse?
g
Iarnrod
Uh, no.
Try to keep up.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:8390be35-565a-4d33...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The WTC buildings were fireproofed.
>
> And why do you think that is required of all such buildings in NY,
> and every other major city in the world?
>
> > That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
>
> The insulation was blown off with the severe impact of the plane
> crashes.
No it wasn't.
No way.
No how.
"Impossible.'
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
AllYou!
news:c56fb1b5-b69c-45db...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Mar 16, 3:46 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> Innews:8390be35-565a-4d33...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The WTC buildings were fireproofed.
>>
>> And why do you think that is required of all such buildings in
>> NY, and every other major city in the world?
>>
>>> That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
>>
>> The insulation was blown off with the severe impact of the plane
>> crashes.
>
> No it wasn't.
Prove it.
> No way.
Way
> No how.
How
> "Impossible.'
Happened.
> http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
There's no proof in there of any of your claims. It's just the same
claims by other people.
So why have you never ventured a guess as to why all the steel in
steel buildings like this have to be fireproofed?
Iarnrod
pathologically:
> On Mar 16, 3:46 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > Innews:8390be35-565a-4d33...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > The WTC buildings were fireproofed.
>
> > And why do you think that is required of all such buildings in NY,
> > and every other major city in the world?
>
> > > That is another reason they didn't collapse from fire.
>
> > The insulation was blown off with the severe impact of the plane
> > crashes.
>
> No it wasn't.
Yes, of course it was, nut job.
> No way.
Way.
> No how.
Yes, how.
> "Impossible.'"
Inevitable.
How do you get around the proven FACT that your claims are physically
impossible? I am curious about that.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 16, 6:42 am, Hankie <9-11nut job...@delusionalkook.org>
> continued to display his mental disabilities:
>
> > Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, Knews wrote:
> > >> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
> > >> collapsed from fire.
> > > Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
Sure.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> > The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building
>
> It was, of course, from floors 17 and up.
You are blind.
>This is not in dispute,
Not in your pea brain.
>as
> the incident stands as testimony to the difference in survivability in
> fire between reinforced concrete framing and steel. This is not even
> remotely in dispute, Hankie. Are you retarded, thinking you could slip
> that lie past your many betters?
>
> > and
> > it remained standing, nut job.
>
> So all that steel framing remained in place and merely became
> “invisible,” kinda like your cartoon magic “explosives?”
> BWAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHHAAAA!!!
>
Ye it's still there.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> > That means it didn't
> > collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
>
> It did collapse, if course, in its entirety.
Then why it is still standing with plenty of steel superstructure
around it?
>All that you see standing
> afterward is the reinforce concrete portion of the structural framing;
> all of the steel framing completely collapsed.
You are full of shit.
But you knew that.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
spudnik
these are good accounts of what they heard & saw, and
also accounts of what they believed these sights & sounds,
must mean, regarding an event that had never occured, before
-- not, "a trashfire never destroyed a skyscraper, before
9/11/01!!!!!!!!"
http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
> Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories
> The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many
> recollections of the sights and sounds of explosions. The excerpts on
> this page describe perceptions of the South Tower collapse, except where
> James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
> We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I
> heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two
> towers was starting to come down.
> ...
> When the dust started to settle, I headed back down towards the World
> Trade Center and I guess I came close to arriving at the corner of Vesey
> and West again where we started to hear the second roar. That was the
> north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and
> myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive -
> bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were ...
>
> read more »
thus:
that was a good question, about L7 (not in the ecliptic .-)
most of "empty space" is the Copenhagenskoolish format
of "reifiying the math" of Pauli's matrices and Heisenberg's
principle, along with the absurdity of an absolute vacuum
-- even though Pascal uncovered it!
> > >> Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does
> > >> not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical
> > >> properties are not limited to matter.
>
> > > Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space
> > > according to steven weinberg
thus:
of course it is possible, if
the apparatus effects the fullerenes,
by somehow tuning into their "frequency"
(viz de Broglie). mostly, those pioneers were confuzed
about the mathmatical duality of Schroedinger's and
Pauli's mathematical approaches, including those, two; so,
just do a "two-column proof in projective geometry"
a la Pascal -- who discovered the perfect vacuum,
"the Plenum." now, your argue that your description
is the "most correct," but it is awfully hand-waviculey!
thus:
the speed of light varies (locally) with the index of refraction;
there is no absolute vacuum, nor "rocks o'light according
to Pentchoo" -- gezundheit!... all that you have to do,
is study "permitivity & permeability" of stuff,
including "free space."
thus:
that's what is known as "over a ton o'math," although
i like the philosophie de l'auteur ... if his topologie holds-up!
> http://books.google.com/books?id=lA8tgLMRu2kC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA279&vq=S...
>Sagnac interferometer
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
Iarnrod
pathologically:
> On Mar 16, 7:05 am, Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > On Mar 16, 6:42 am, Hankie <9-11nut job...@delusionalkook.org>
> > continued to display his mental disabilities:
>
> > > Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > > >> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
> > > >> collapsed from fire.
> > > > Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
> Sure.
Of course. Proven FACT that you cannot deny. Q.E.D. Case closed.
> > > The Windsor tower wasn't a steel framed building
>
> > It was, of course, from floors 17 and up.
>
> You are blind.
BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!! Holy SHIT, the denial!! Cleopatra, you are TRULY
the densest denial kook on usenet!!! There is simply no debate that
Windsor Tower was steel-framed from floor 17 up. This is simply an
established FACT of how the building was built. You may be the ONLY
nutbag in the world still to be denying this… well, you and Hankie the
Fired Janitor. Knowsknothing, this takes the cake!
> >This is not in dispute,
>
> Not in your pea brain.
Projection. I am the one who knows how the building was built while
you are still in denial.
> >as
> > the incident stands as testimony to the difference in survivability in
> > fire between reinforced concrete framing and steel. This is not even
> > remotely in dispute, Hankie. Are you retarded, thinking you could slip
> > that lie past your many betters?
>
> > > and
> > > it remained standing, nut job.
>
> > So all that steel framing remained in place and merely became
> > “invisible,” kinda like your cartoon magic “explosives?”
> > BWAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHHAAAA!!!
>
> Ye it's still there.
Knowsknothing, what you see remaining is the REINFORCED CONCRETE
FRAMING!! It survived. That is why the concrete industry uses this
incident to promote its product over steel, since both structural
elements were present and STEEL FAILED.
Holy SHIT, knowsknothing cannot tell the difference between concrete
and steel!! KOOK ALERT!!!
> > > That means it didn't
> > > collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
>
> > It did collapse, if course, in its entirety.
>
> Then why it is still standing with plenty of steel superstructure
> around it?
BWAHAHHAAAAA!!! IDIOT, that is the CONCRETE PART!! Jeebus, DENSE DENSE
DENSE kooker, READ!!
> >All that you see standing
> > afterward is the reinforce concrete portion of the structural framing;
> > all of the steel framing completely collapsed.
>
> You are full of shit.
I just proved that you are.
> But you knew that.
That you are full of shit? Well, yeah, of course I knew that. Everyone
knows that. ‘cept YOU! BWAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!!
Thanks, this post was my best laugh of the day so far, but you still
have time to top it and I am sure you will!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 16, 12:27 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied
> pathologically:
>
> > On Mar 16, 7:05 am, Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 6:42 am, Hankie <9-11nut job...@delusionalkook.org>
> > > continued to display his mental disabilities:
>
> > > > Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > > > > On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
> > > > >> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
> > > > >> collapsed from fire.
> > > > > Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
> > Sure.
>
> Of course. Proven FACT that you cannot deny. Q.E.D. Case closed.
Then why do you snip the link 3 times to keep the world from seeing
you bullshit lies?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
Because you are a loser.
Iarnrod
Ummm, kooker, YOUR LINKS SHOW I AM CORRECT -- they prove that you are
lying. I snipped them because even I must have compassion for you, the
mentally retarded! YOUR LINKS SHOW THE STEEL FRAME IS COMPLETELY AND
TOTALLY GONE!!! Don't you GET IT? You're fuckin' LYING!!
ALL that is left there is the reinforced concrete frame -- FACT.
LOOK IT UP befrore you embarrass your parents again.
JEEBUS, you're stupid!
AllYou!
news:7e1df69e-61af-475a...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you see a
picture of concrete, and call it steel.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:7e1df69e-61af-475a...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
And then you snip it too.
If it proves your case why don't you leave it there?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
AllYou!
news:6f931b8d-37ba-4ecd...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Snipped what?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:6f931b8d-37ba-4ecd...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
AllYou!
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf5628db-948e-4938...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
There's nothing there except fiction.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you
> > >> see a picture of concrete, and call it steel.
>
> > > And then you snip it too.
>
> > Snipped what?
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
>
> There's nothing there except fiction.
Yea, just pictures of a partially destroyed tower after an 18 hour
"inferno."
Nothing like any building that dropped on 9-11.
Thanks for showing the world how blind you are.
Iarnrod
pathologically:
> On Mar 16, 11:51 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:7e1df69e-61af-475a...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > On Mar 16, 11:39 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 16, 12:27 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied
> > >> pathologically:
>
> > >>> On Mar 16, 7:05 am, Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this
> > >>> stupid fool:
>
> > >>>> On Mar 16, 6:42 am, Hankie <9-11nut job...@delusionalkook.org>
> > >>>> continued to display his mental disabilities:
>
> > >>>>> Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook
> > >>>>>> lied pathologically:
> > >>>>>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high
> > >>>>>>> rise" that collapsed from fire.
> > >>>>>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
> > >>> Sure.
>
> > >> Of course. Proven FACT that you cannot deny. Q.E.D. Case closed.
>
> > > Then why do you snip the link 3 times to keep the world from
> > > seeing
> > > you bullshit lies.
>
> > Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you see a
> > picture of concrete, and call it steel.
>
> And then you snip it too.
> If it proves your case why don't you leave it there?http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
Because even we feel sorry for your sad state of humiliation,
knowsknothing.
Iarnrod
pathologically:
> On Mar 16, 1:13 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > Innews:6f931b8d-37ba-4ecd...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com,
And what "part" of it was destroyed, knowsknothing kook?
Why, that's right! It was the ENTIRE STEEL FRAMED PORTION, proving you
wrong and us right.
BWAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!! Knowsknothing continues to post proof that
he is wrong.
> Nothing like any building that dropped on 9-11.
Was Windsor Tower hit by an airplane, nutbag?
It was built differently, why would you "think: it should have reacted
the same?
Are you smoking crack again tonight?
All that remained was the reinforced concrete frame. The steel frame
completely collapsed. You lose again.
> Thanks for showing the world how blind you are.
WOW!! The fuckin' IRONY! you post a site that disproves your own claim
and proves ME right, then call others blind!
knews4...@yahoo.com
You're a fucking idiot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#global
Iarnrod
Why does proving you wrong and feeling sorry for your stupid kooker
ass make me a fucking idiot, knowsknothing?
P. Maffia
a row. He acted as if he believed the title was a complement.
No further voting has taken place for a couple of years because no one
believed anyone could give Knews a run for the title.
Here it is only March and knews already has at least one very strong
contender in Hank the unemployed janitor. There are several others. But so
far none of them come even close to these two morons.
Since it is early in the year, we will just have to see how it goes. But as
of now we have two hot contenders for the title along with a few hopefuls.
It will be interesting to see who wins.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d4df5c7-2aa0-45f0...@a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> A few years back knews was chosen Village Idiot of the Year, three years
> in a row. He acted as if he believed the title was a complement.
>
> No further voting has taken place for a couple of years because no one
> believed anyone could give Knews a run for the title.
>
> Here it is only March and knews already has at least one very strong
> contender in Hank the unemployed janitor. There are several others. But
> so far none of them come even close to these two morons.
>
> Since it is early in the year, we will just have to see how it goes. But
> as of now we have two hot contenders for the title along with a few
> hopefuls. It will be interesting to see who wins.
Ad homenims rather than dialog get you kill filed.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knews4...@yahoo.com
off?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> > > > And then you snip it too.
> > > > If it proves your case why don't you leave it there?
>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
>
> > > Because even we feel sorry for your sad state of humiliation,
> > > knowsknothing.
>
> > You're a fucking idiot.
>
> Why does proving you wrong and feeling sorry for your stupid kooker
> ass make me a fucking idiot, knowsknothing?
Prove me wrong?
HA.
You got nothing.
You never have a thing except pounding your flat chest and lies.
You are the biggest know nothing on the net.
You think snipping links and cites makes you the winner.
You are a worthless turd.
Flluuuuuuushsshshshshsshshshsh
Iarnrod
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:54:47 -0700, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net>
> wrote:
>
> > A few years back knews was chosen Village Idiot of the Year, three years
> > in a row. He acted as if he believed the title was a complement.
>
> > No further voting has taken place for a couple of years because no one
> > believed anyone could give Knews a run for the title.
>
> > Here it is only March and knews already has at least one very strong
> > contender in Hank the unemployed janitor. There are several others. But
> > so far none of them come even close to these two morons.
>
> > Since it is early in the year, we will just have to see how it goes. But
> > as of now we have two hot contenders for the title along with a few
> > hopefuls. It will be interesting to see who wins.
>
> Ad homenims rather than dialog get you kill filed.
Learn how to spell, Kurly Kook. And that wasn't an ad hominem. You
don't know what an ad hominem is.
You love to killfile people you cannot match in a debate. Run away!!!
Iarnrod
No, I mean Windsor Tower, which saw its ENTIRE steel framed portion
COMPLETELY COLLAPSE due ONLY to fire. This is not even open to
dispute, nut job. I suggest you call the Center for the Blind and
enroll.
> > > > > And then you snip it too.
> > > > > If it proves your case why don't you leave it there?
> >http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
>
> > > > Because even we feel sorry for your sad state of humiliation,
> > > > knowsknothing.
>
> > > You're a fucking idiot.
>
> > Why does proving you wrong and feeling sorry for your stupid kooker
> > ass make me a fucking idiot, knowsknothing?
>
> Prove me wrong?
Of course. I did.
> HA.
> You got nothing.
I got everything, of course. You got nothing, which I proved beyond
doubt.
> You never have a thing except pounding your flat chest and lies.
I have all the science, facts, witnesses, physics, videos... all the
proof is on my side, you know.
You have a load of crack to smoke, is all.
> You are the biggest know nothing on the net.
Holy SHIT, that's your fuckin' NAME, kook.
> You think snipping links and cites makes you the winner.
no, beating you with PROVEN FACTS makes me the winner.
> You are a worthless turd.
Projection.
> Flluuuuuuushsshshshshsshshshsh
There you go swirling again, knowknothing! Hope you have your rubber
duckie!!
Remy McSwain
news:59da7b9a-3c1b-497c...@k4g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Which you're completely misiterpreted.
Henry
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:54:47 -0700, "P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net>
> wrote:
>> A few years back knews was chosen Village Idiot of the Year, three years
>> in a row. He acted as if he believed the title was a complement.
>> No further voting has taken place for a couple of years because no one
>> believed anyone could give Knews a run for the title.
>> Here it is only March and knews already has at least one very strong
>> contender in Hank the unemployed janitor. There are several others. But
>> so far none of them come even close to these two morons.
>> Since it is early in the year, we will just have to see how it goes. But
>> as of now we have two hot contenders for the title along with a few
>> hopefuls. It will be interesting to see who wins.
> Ad homenims rather than dialog get you kill filed.
You don't expect logic or reason from someone who
believes in an impossible fairy tale on blind faith
alone, do you? As "P. Maffia" so clearly demonstrates,
blatant, childish lies and moronic "insults" are all
they have, which is why intelligent, informed people
so readily dismiss their silly, fact free kook rants. <g>
Now, back to the hard evidence and expert research.
This video proves free fall of WTC7. Even NIST was finally
forced to admit it. This is shown nine minutes into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
Here's the quote that the magic fire conspiracy theorists
need to focus on and comprehend:
"Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion."
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that
it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing ? as we now have
over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real
investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center
high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps
when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse - that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
john
> On Mar 16, 8:49 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:05 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 6:42 am, Hankie <9-11nut job...@delusionalkook.org>
> > > continued to display his mental disabilities:
>
> > > > Mighty Iarnrod kindly corrected this stupid fool:
>
> > > > >> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise" that
> > > > >> collapsed from fire.
> > > > > Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
>
> > > the incident stands as testimony to the difference in survivability in
> > > fire between reinforced concrete framing and steel. This is not even
> > > remotely in dispute, Hankie. Are you retarded, thinking you could slip
> > > that lie past your many betters?
>
> > > > and
> > > > it remained standing, nut job.
>
> > > So all that steel framing remained in place and merely became
> > > “invisible,” kinda like your cartoon magic “explosives?”
> > > BWAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHHAAAA!!!
>
> > > > collapse, and the comparisons are limited anyway.
>
> > > afterward is the reinforce concrete portion of the structural framing;
> > > about now, trying to blatantly lie in front of your betters, who of
> > > course know all about this.
>
> > > > As always, here's proof that you're lying and being
> > > > stupid again.
>
> > > As always, Hankie’s “proof” proves him wrong!
>
> > > > > This begs the question of course that the WTC did not collapse only
> > > > > from fire. PLANE CRASHES and/or IMPACT DAMAGE on all three.
>
> > > > No plane impact and no significant structural damage to
> > > > WTC7, nut job.
>
> > > Wrong, nut job. The correct statement is “no plane impact BUT
> > > significant structural damagfe to WTC7.” It is all verified and shown
> > > on videos and photos, of course, not in dispute. Huge gouge carved out
> > > of the south façade by thousands of tons of free-falling steel girders
> > > and flaming debris. This is fully documented, of course.
>
> > > > You need to keep up with your lies.
>
> > > Easy, since I have never lied, the total would be ZERO. I stopped
> > > keeping up with YOUR lies at 2 million.
>
> > > > NIST
> > > > was forced to dump its lie that WTC7 suffered structural
> > > > damage when it became clear that there was no evidence to
> > > > support it.
>
> > > BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!! I love this part, where you make a claim and then
> > > post proof that your claim is a lie! NIST did no such thing, of
> > > course, and your cite shows NIST **confirming** the structural damage,
> > > of course.
>
> > > > As always, here's proof that you're lying and
> > > > being stupid again. <g>
>
> > > > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
>
> > > > Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
> > > > collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
> > > > structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
> > > > of WTC 7."
>
> > > Thank you for reposting proof of your utter defeat without me having
> > > to lift a finger. Not from your cite above, these words: “the
> > > resulting structural damage.”
>
> > > Your assertion that NIST “dumped its lie that WTC7 suffered structural
> > > damage” is of course proven wrong and contradicted, and my claim is
> > > proven, by your very cite! I couldn’t have exposed you better myself!
>
> > > <chuckle>
>
> > But...weren't you arguing that the
> > structural damage *did* cause the collapse?
> > g
>
> Uh, no.
>
> Try to keep up.--
Keeping up with you is hard.
You don't go fast, but you twist and turn.
Building 7 didn't collapse
from the structural damage it received?
Just from the numerous fires?
john
Iarnrod
<9-11nutjob...@morons.org> wrote:
> Kurly Kook wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:54:47 -0700, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net>
> > wrote:
> >> A few years back knews was chosen Village Idiot of the Year, three years
> >> in a row. He acted as if he believed the title was a complement.
> >> No further voting has taken place for a couple of years because no one
> >> believed anyone could give Knews a run for the title.
> >> Here it is only March and knews already has at least one very strong
> >> contender in Hank the unemployed janitor. There are several others. But
> >> so far none of them come even close to these two morons.
> >> Since it is early in the year, we will just have to see how it goes. But
> >> as of now we have two hot contenders for the title along with a few
> >> hopefuls. It will be interesting to see who wins.
> > Ad homenims rather than dialog get you kill filed.
>
> You don't expect logic or reason from someone who
> believes in an impossible fairy tale on blind faith
> alone, do you?
Of course not, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. That's why we
are never disappointed when you don't deliver on your claims! At least
you realize it! You and Kurly Kook ought to spend more time reading
your fairy tales to one another while we your many betters remain here
in the sane world. <chuckle>
Iarnrod
That's because you are still lost in your delusions abotu physically
impossible controlled demolitions and such. Out here in the sane
world, there is no problem.
> You don't go fast, but you twist and turn.
I have never done any such thing and you can't find any instance where
I have been inconsistent.
You are merely confused by your own failure to interpret and read
correctly, dearie.
> Building 7 didn't collapse
> from the structural damage it received?
No, it didn't, which is not the same thing as saying it did not
receive significant structural damage. It did. That's where Hankie the
Janitor is so confused. He "thinks" if the infliction of the
structural damage didn't cause the collapse, then the damage didn't
exist. That's delusional lunacy.
> Just from the numerous fires?
Correct. Kind of like how Windsor Tower's entire steel framed
structure collapsesd due only to fires, and in that case there was NO
structural damage prior to the fires. Try reading the report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
spudnik
he being an on-duty custodian at one of the towers;
however, his interp[retations are open to questioning!
> Of course not, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. That's why we
thus:
I'm an idiot. what's funny is that
I attended the Ninth Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA,
where the keynoter told the story of how,
Newton stole the inverse second-power law
(the algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints).
thus:
that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
(from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).
> why would Fermat explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
> (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)
thus:
ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).
Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
he must be using the new "mental operating system!"
thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!
http://larouchepub.com
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 15, 12:57 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > Innews:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
> > > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 6:32 am, Ioonyrodlies <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 15, 2:22 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Mar 15, 2:03 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > >>>> On Mar 14, 7:36 am, Ioonyrodlies <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knewi...@shit-for-government.com
>
> > > >>>>>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> > > >>>>>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never
> > > >>>>>> testify as to
> > > >>>>>> what they saw on the WTC
> > > >>>>>> sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
>
> > > >>>>> We know what they saw, kookshit.
>
> > > >>>> But you weren't there standing at their side.
>
> > > >>>>> They already said so.
>
> > > >>>> Liar.
> > > >>>> Why do continue to lie and say people didn't say or see
> > > >>>> things they
> > > >>>> did?http://www.google.com/search?q=118+eye+witness+9-11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8...
>
> > > >>>>> And one thing
> > > >>>>> they did NOT see was controlled demolition,
>
> > > >>>> So you know what they saw and they didn't?
Again, they did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg
> > > >>>> Were you hiding in their heads seeing with their eyes and
> > > >>>> hearing with their ears?
> > > >>>> And if "no one" saw CD why did nearly every newscaster from
> > > >>>> Jennings to Dan Rather comment "looks just like so many old
> > > >>>> buildings that we've seen demolished?"
> > > >>>> You are blind.
>
> > > >>>>> which is proven to be a
> > > >>>>> physical impossibility.
>
> > > >>>> No, liar, nothing of the sort has been "proven impossible" by
> > > >>>> you or anyone else.
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
>
> > > >>>> The only thing "proven," as history has shown, is that steel
> > > >>>> framed high rises DON'T "globally collapse" into dust from
> > > >>>> fires or any other type of disaster without help from
> > > >>>> incendiaries.
>
> > > >>> fucking horseshit.
>
> > > >> He forgets about all the thousands of steel structures that HAVE
> > > >> collapsed due ONLY to fire without any airplanes also crashing
> > > >> into them. He's a kook.
>
Yet you show no "steel framed high rises" that "globally" collapse.
> > > > Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise"
> > > > that
> > > > collapsed from fire.
>
> > > So why have you never ventured a guess as to why every single
> > > significant building code requires all structural steel members to
> > > be fireproofed?
>
> > And why have you NEVER ventured to guess why the investigations are
> > REQUIRED BY LAW to look for incendiaries YET EVEN WHEN THERE IS
> > EVIDENCE FOR THEM IN THE REPORTS NONE DO?\
>
> You make several blatant LIES here. 1) Investiators are NOT required
> to look for incendiaries.
Liar.
NFPA 921
http://www.google.com/search?q=nfpa+921+wtc+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
>I shoved that FACT up your ass last week.
No, you puked another blatant lie.
>2)
> There is ZERO evidence of incendiaries at the WTC nor did incendiaries
> have anything to do with the coillapse.
>
Which again proves you a blatant liar.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkoTE3S5xKI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYdmrgCxs9k&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggc0jT19Pj4&feature=PlayList&p=A0E4134BF3F33711&index=43&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL
> You're still batting 0.000, knowsknothing.
You are a lying sack of puss.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
FEMA found it and NIST ignores it.
.
Iarnrod
pathologically:
> On Mar 15, 3:05 pm, Mighty Iarnrod shoved TRUTH up this kooker's ass with:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 12:57 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Innews:06ad161e-789f-4f9a...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > > > On Mar 15, 6:32 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved TRUTH up this kooker's ass with:> > > > >>> On Mar 15, 2:03 am, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > > >>>> On Mar 14, 7:36 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved TRUTH up this kooker's ass with:
>
> > > > >>>>> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > > >>>>>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> > > > >>>>>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never
> > > > >>>>>> testify as to
> > > > >>>>>> what they saw on the WTC
> > > > >>>>>> sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
>
> > > > >>>>> We know what they saw, kookshit.
>
> > > > >>>> But you weren't there standing at their side.
>
> > > > >>>>> They already said so.
>
> > > > >>>> Liar.
> > > > >>>> Why do continue to lie and say people didn't say or see
> > > > >>>> things they
> > > > >>>> did?http://www.google.com/search?q=118+eye+witness+9-11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8...
>
> > > > >>>>> And one thing
> > > > >>>>> they did NOT see was controlled demolition,
>
> > > > >>>> So you know what they saw and they didn't?
>
> Again, they did.
They did see what i am saying, not what you are saying. You love to
quote selectively but that is a pathological form a LYING that you are
quite experienced in!
>
> > > > >>>> Were you hiding in their heads seeing with their eyes and
> > > > >>>> hearing with their ears?
> > > > >>>> And if "no one" saw CD why did nearly every newscaster from
> > > > >>>> Jennings to Dan Rather comment "looks just like so many old
> > > > >>>> buildings that we've seen demolished?"
> > > > >>>> You are blind.
>
> > > > >>>>> which is proven to be a
> > > > >>>>> physical impossibility.
>
> > > > >>>> No, liar, nothing of the sort has been "proven impossible" by
> > > > >>>> you or anyone else.
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
This proves me correct and contradicts you.
Try again.
NAME ONE THING. You post cites to videos and articles without ever
stating what it is YOU believe. Why are you so afwaid, knowsknothing?
You might hear some TRUTH that will shatter your kooker world? <tee
hee>
> > > > >>>> The only thing "proven," as history has shown, is that steel
> > > > >>>> framed high rises DON'T "globally collapse" into dust from
> > > > >>>> fires or any other type of disaster without help from
> > > > >>>> incendiaries.
>
> > > > >>> fucking horseshit.
>
> > > > >> He forgets about all the thousands of steel structures that HAVE
> > > > >> collapsed due ONLY to fire without any airplanes also crashing
> > > > >> into them. He's a kook.
>
> Yet you show no "steel framed high rises" that "globally" collapse.
Psssst: Windsor Tower, asshole. ALL of the steel framed structure
TOTALLY COLLAPSED -- NONE WAS LEFT.
>
> > > > > Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise"
> > > > > that
> > > > > collapsed from fire.
>
> > > > So why have you never ventured a guess as to why every single
> > > > significant building code requires all structural steel members to
> > > > be fireproofed?
>
> > > And why have you NEVER ventured to guess why the investigations are
> > > REQUIRED BY LAW to look for incendiaries YET EVEN WHEN THERE IS
> > > EVIDENCE FOR THEM IN THE REPORTS NONE DO?\
>
> > You make several blatant LIES here. 1) Investiators are NOT required
> > to look for incendiaries.
>
> Liar.
> NFPA 921http://www.google.com/search?q=nfpa+921+wtc+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&r...
>
> >I shoved that FACT up your ass last week.
>
> No, you puked another blatant lie.
>
> >2)
> > There is ZERO evidence of incendiaries at the WTC nor did incendiaries
> > have anything to do with the coillapse.
>
> Which again proves you a blatant liar.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkoTE3S5xKIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYdmrgCxs9k&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggc0jT19Pj4&feature=PlayList&p=A0E4134...
>
> > You're still batting 0.000, knowsknothing.
>
> You are a lying sack of puss.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:7e1df69e-61af-475a...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:> >> On Mar 16, 12:27 pm, knewitwasCD...@shit-for-government:
>
> >>> On Mar 16, 7:05 am, Mighty Ioonyrodlies stupid fool spewed:
>
> >>>> On Mar 16, 6:42 am, Hankie <9-11tech job...@usamakook.org>
> >>>> continued to display his mental disabilities:
>
>
> >>>>>> On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, knewitwasCD.@shit-for-government:
:
> >>>>>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high
> >>>>>>> rise" that collapsed from fire.
> >>>>>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
Then why doesn't the WTC Towers look like the Windsor after it
"collapsed?"
> >>> Sure.
>
> >> Of course. Proven FACT that you cannot deny. Q.E.D. Case closed.
>
> > Then why do you snip the link 3 times to keep the world from
> > seeing
> > you bullshit lies.
>
> Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you see a
> picture of concrete, and call it steel.
Most of the steel superstructure and the concrete core of the Windsor
building remains.
A few floors collapsed after 18 hours by peeling off the sides.
Whooppeefuck.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
"If" anything, this is what the WTC tower should look like from
"raging fires." A few floors peeled off the side hanging by the core
and trusses.
The core is a HUGE heat sink to the rest of the building.
All that steel was connected even if I give you 25% columns destroyed
by the jets which is a very high figure, the structure was at least
3.5 times redundant.
There is NO "office and jet fuel fire" that can weaken 75% of the 47
steel core columns, including the steel perimeter and steel floor
trusses ALL AT ONCE to "initiate global collapse."
Much LESS in 90 minutes.
Get real.
That isn't how fire works.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Iarnrod
pathologically:
> > On Mar 15, 12:57 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > > knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > > > On Mar 15, 6:32 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved TRUTH up this stupid kooker's ass with:
> > > > >> On Mar 15, 2:22 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Mar 15, 2:03 am, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > > >>>> On Mar 14, 7:36 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved TRUTH up this stupid kooker's ass with:
>
> > > > >>>>> On Mar 12, 9:06 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied pathologically:
>
> > > > >>>>>> All the closest witness will soon be dead.
> > > > >>>>>> You can bet as part of their "settlement" they can never
> > > > >>>>>> testify as to
> > > > >>>>>> what they saw on the WTC
> > > > >>>>>> sitehttp://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/9.11.first.2.1555218.html
>
> > > > >>>>> We know what they saw, kookshit.
>
> > > > >>>> But you weren't there standing at their side.
>
> > > > >>>>> They already said so.
>
> > > > >>>> Liar.
> > > > >>>> Why do continue to lie and say people didn't say or see
> > > > >>>> things they
> > > > >>>> did?http://www.google.com/search?q=118+eye+witness+9-11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8...
>
> > > > >>>>> And one thing
> > > > >>>>> they did NOT see was controlled demolition,
>
> > > > >>>> So you know what they saw and they didn't?
>
> Again, they did.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg
This proves me correct and contradicts you.
Try again.
NAME ONE THING. You post cites to videos and articles without ever
stating what it is YOU believe. Why are you so afwaid, knowsknothing?
You might hear some TRUTH that will shatter your kooker world? <tee
hee>
> > > > >>>> The only thing "proven," as history has shown, is that steel
> > > > >>>> framed high rises DON'T "globally collapse" into dust from
> > > > >>>> fires or any other type of disaster without help from
> > > > >>>> incendiaries.
> > > > >>> fucking horseshit.
> > > > >> He forgets about all the thousands of steel structures that HAVE
> > > > >> collapsed due ONLY to fire without any airplanes also crashing
> > > > >> into them. He's a kook.
> Yet you show no "steel framed high rises" that "globally" collapse.
Psssst: Windsor Tower, asshole. ALL of the steel framed structure
TOTALLY COLLAPSED -- NONE WAS LEFT. That's GLOBAL. What you see still
standing there, asshole, is what PROVES ME CORRECT -- it ain't steel,
it's the reinforced concrete framing. The FACT that you are too stupid
to get it is highly amusing to us, your many betters.
> > > > > Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high rise"
> > > > > that
> > > > > collapsed from fire.
>
> > > > So why have you never ventured a guess as to why every single
> > > > significant building code requires all structural steel members to
> > > > be fireproofed?
>
> > > And why have you NEVER ventured to guess why the investigations are
> > > REQUIRED BY LAW to look for incendiaries YET EVEN WHEN THERE IS
> > > EVIDENCE FOR THEM IN THE REPORTS NONE DO?\
>
> > You make several blatant LIES here. 1) Investiators are NOT required
> > to look for incendiaries.
>
> Liar.
How come you can't prove that lying charge?
> NFPA 921http://www.google.com/search?q=nfpa+921+wtc+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&r...
Umm, dearie, instead of foaming and flailing, how about you actually
TRY to show me the part in there that requires them to look for
incendiaries? You can't and you won't.
> >I shoved that FACT up your ass last week.
>
> No, you puked another blatant lie.
How come you can't name one?
> >2)
> > There is ZERO evidence of incendiaries at the WTC nor did incendiaries
> > have anything to do with the coillapse.
>
> Which again proves you a blatant liar.
Nope. I am proven correct and YOU are proven the blatant liar, liar.
ZERO evidence of incendiaries and you CANNOT provide any. FACT.
> > You're still batting 0.000, knowsknothing.
>
> You are a lying sack of puss.
Projection.
> FEMA found it and NIST ignores it.
You're lying again!
Remy McSwain
news:c9aa6e2e-9d63-4fc5...@h35g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
The concrete remained somewhat in place, and the steel remained, but
in the hole. DUH!
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 16, 11:51=A0am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high
>> >>>>>>> rise" that collapsed from fire.
>> >>>>>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>Then why doesn't the WTC Towers look like the Windsor after it
>"collapsed?"
Ummm, the WTC towers didn't have a fire-resistant concrete core?
>> Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you see a
>> picture of concrete, and call it steel.
>Most of the steel superstructure and the concrete core of the Windsor
>building remains.
Yeah, ALL the steel remained in a pile of rubble. NONE of it was
left standing. It was an EXCELLENT demonstration of how steel weakens
in a huge fire, and concrete holds up better.
>A few floors collapsed after 18 hours by peeling off the sides.
>Whooppeefuck.
HAHAHAH!!!! Stupid kooktard denying reality. ALL of the steel framing
collapsed into twisted bent rubble, the concrete core remained standing.
Why are you in such Denial?
>The core is a HUGE heat sink to the rest of the building.
Steel is only a so-so conductor of heat. Ever see a blacksmith at
work bending a long steel bar? He'll heat it at the point of bending to
yellow-white hot, but the steel further away is only red hot and even
further away it doesn't even glow. Even further away he handles it with
gloved hands.
>All that steel was connected even if I give you 25% columns destroyed
>by the jets which is a very high figure, the structure was at least
>3.5 times redundant.
The columns were loaded to 40-50% of their compression failure pressure
_at room temperature_. Knock out several of them and the others get
an increased load, but not enough to cause failure (the building remained
standing). Then heat those columns in a fire...
>There is NO "office and jet fuel fire" that can weaken 75% of the 47
>steel core columns, including the steel perimeter and steel floor
>trusses ALL AT ONCE to "initiate global collapse."
>Much LESS in 90 minutes.
>Get real.
>That isn't how fire works.
As if you know _anything_ about how fires work. NOT.
Why won't you tell us why ALL building codes require steel framing to
be fireproofed?
(besides, the outer columns, not the core, failed first. The core stood
for some seconds)
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:c9aa6e2e-9d63-4fc5...@h35g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
The hole in your head?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911mysteries/index.html
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
> >On Mar 16, 11:51=A0am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high
> >> >>>>>>> rise" that collapsed from fire.
> >> >>>>>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
> >Then why doesn't the WTC Towers look like the Windsor after it
> >"collapsed?"
>
> Ummm, the WTC towers didn't have a fire-resistant concrete core?
>
> >> Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you see a
> >> picture of concrete, and call it steel.
> >Most of the steel superstructure and the concrete core of the Windsor
> >building remains.
>
> Yeah, ALL the steel remained in a pile of rubble. NONE of it was
> left standing.
Liar.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
It was an EXCELLENT demonstration of how steel weakens
> in a huge fire, and concrete holds up better.
>
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911mysteries/index.html
> >A few floors collapsed after 18 hours by peeling off the sides.
> >Whooppeefuck.
>
> HAHAHAH!!!! Stupid kooktard denying reality. ALL of the steel framing
> collapsed into twisted bent rubble, the concrete core remained standing.
You lie through your teeth.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> Why are you in such Denial?
>
> >The core is a HUGE heat sink to the rest of the building.
>
> Steel is only a so-so conductor of heat.
Dumb ass.
Liar.
>Ever see a blacksmith at
> work bending a long steel bar? He'll heat it at the point of bending to
> yellow-white hot, but the steel further away is only red hot and even
> further away it doesn't even glow. Even further away he handles it with
> gloved hands.
>
No.
He uses tonges.
> >All that steel was connected even if I give you 25% columns destroyed
> >by the jets which is a very high figure, the structure was at least
> >3.5 times redundant.
>
> The columns were loaded to 40-50% of their compression failure pressure
> _at room temperature_. Knock out several of them and the others get
> an increased load, but not enough to cause failure (the building remained
> standing). Then heat those columns in a fire...
>
Maybe in a blast furnace.
1 hour office fire won't do it Clem.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
There was no evidence of any fire of 1500 degrees needed to soften
steel much less 3.5 times redundant core columns and perimeter
columns.
> >There is NO "office and jet fuel fire" that can weaken 75% of the 47
> >steel core columns, including the steel perimeter and steel floor
> >trusses ALL AT ONCE to "initiate global collapse."
> >Much LESS in 90 minutes.
> >Get real.
> >That isn't how fire works.
>
> As if you know _anything_ about how fires work. NOT.
I've seen my share.
>
> Why won't you tell us why ALL building codes require steel framing to
> be fireproofed?
>
The Towers and 7 were fireproofed.
> (besides, the outer columns, not the core, failed first. The core stood
> for some seconds)
You're an idiot.
Tower 2 started to tip sideways then disappeared in a cloud of dust
instead of falling off sideways as it should have according to the
laws of physics.
Tower 1, the core collapses first as proven in the videos showing the
antenna dropping before anything else moves.
Remy McSwain
Michael Moroney
>On Mar 18, 8:30=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
>> >On Mar 16, 11:51=3DA0am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high
>> >> >>>>>>> rise" that collapsed from fire.
>> >> >>>>>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>> >Then why doesn't the WTC Towers look like the Windsor after it
>> >"collapsed?"
>>
>> Ummm, the WTC towers didn't have a fire-resistant concrete core?
>>
>No, it had a huge heat sink mde up of 47 core columns.
>> >> Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you see a
>> >> picture of concrete, and call it steel.
>> >Most of the steel superstructure and the concrete core of the Windsor
>> >building remains.
>>
>> Yeah, ALL the steel remained in a pile of rubble. =A0NONE of it was
>> left standing. =A0
>Liar.
You're back to not responding other than posting kooklinks again.
>It was an EXCELLENT demonstration of how steel weakens
>> in a huge fire, and concrete holds up better.
Again, no response other than kooklinks.
>> >A few floors collapsed after 18 hours by peeling off the sides.
>> >Whooppeefuck.
>>
>> HAHAHAH!!!! Stupid kooktard denying reality. ALL of the steel framing
>> collapsed into twisted bent rubble, the concrete core remained standing.
>You lie through your teeth.
C'mon, can't you respond more than a single sentence?
>> Why are you in such Denial?
>>
>> >The core is a HUGE heat sink to the rest of the building.
>>
>> Steel is only a so-so conductor of heat. =A0
>Dumb ass.
>Liar.
OK, two sentences this time, but only three words.
I want discussion!
>>Ever see a blacksmith at
>> work bending a long steel bar? =A0He'll heat it at the point of bending to
>> yellow-white hot, but the steel further away is only red hot and even
>> further away it doesn't even glow. Even further away he handles it with
>> gloved hands.
>>
>No.
>He uses tonges.
Usually, but it's often not necessary. *I* have bent steel this way,
heating a portion where the bend is to be yellow-hot and bending the rod
with gloved hands.
Steel sucks as a heat sink.
>> >All that steel was connected even if I give you 25% columns destroyed
>> >by the jets which is a very high figure, the structure was at least
>> >3.5 times redundant.
>>
>> The columns were loaded to 40-50% of their compression failure pressure
>> _at room temperature_. Knock out several of them and the others get
>> an increased load, but not enough to cause failure (the building remained
>> standing). Then heat those columns in a fire...
>>
>Maybe in a blast furnace.
>1 hour office fire won't do it Clem.
Let's discuss this. In the case of the towers, it was the trusses that
were the most affected, not the columns. First the trusses were all
relatively lightweight, not much mass to heat. Second, the trusses are
located just below the ceiling - the hottest place in a fire. Third,
trusses aren't a solid sheet of metal like an I-beam, they have component
parts where local heating could cause just that part to fail -- but that
could cause the whole truss to warp, if not fail outright. (Remember,
the protective insulation was knocked off, if not completely, definitely
it was in many spots). We have photos showing the warped trusses.
Firefighters fear warehouse-type buildings with truss construction.
It's too easy for a large fire to cause truss failure which causes a
ceiling collapse. Those towers were 110 of those warehouses, stacked on
top of each other!
>There was no evidence of any fire of 1500 degrees needed to soften
>steel much less 3.5 times redundant core columns and perimeter
>columns.
40% loading is 2.5 times redundant, not 3.5 times. But regardless, it
was the trusses that went first, we can see from the photos just before
collapse how they were so warped and bent.
>> >That isn't how fire works.
>>
>> As if you know _anything_ about how fires work. NOT.
>I've seen my share.
oooh... you've seen fires, which means that you must know more than
all those fire safety companies, building code writers, firefighters etc.
etc.
>> Why won't you tell us why ALL building codes require steel framing to
>> be fireproofed?
>>
>The Towers and 7 were fireproofed.
Now, tell us why they would bother to do so.
>> (besides, the outer columns, not the core, failed first. The core stood
>> for some seconds)
>Tower 2 started to tip sideways then disappeared in a cloud of dust
Yes. One side of the exterior wall failed as trusses pulled the columns
in, the load transferred to adjacent columns and the core which started
failing causing the upper section to tilt as a block. It's hard to tell
what happened inside the dust, but certainly the failing columns quickly
went along the entire floors and then as the now-unsupported top part fell
and impacted the bottom parts, they were destroyed, and as the debris fell
below it kept destroying everything on the way down, pretty much what we
saw.
>instead of falling off sideways as it should have according to the
>laws of physics.
You stooopid kooktard!! How many times do you have to be told that
gravity pulls down, not sideways!!! Didn't you learn this when you were
still a baby?
>Tower 1, the core collapses first as proven in the videos showing the
>antenna dropping before anything else moves.
The upper floors of the towers were a complex set of trusses to support
antennas. It was called a hat truss. They were essentially a solid
block, so the antenna and the rest of the top would move as a unit. What
likely happened is, as the perimeter wall failed, the floors above the
failure were hanging from the hat truss, which transferred the load to
the core and other perimeter walls. This overload did cause failure
in the core, probably at the fire floors or above as well as overloading
the rest of the perimeter walls. But this was well _after_ the trusses
caused the initial perimeter wall failure.
Besides, we have videos showing the core standing for a few seconds
after the collapse, but its top was below the fire floors.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 18, 4:05 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:c9aa6e2e-9d63-4fc5...@h35g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
>
> > > On Mar 16, 11:51 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> > >> Innews:7e1df69e-61af-475a...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
>
> > >>>>> On Mar 16, 7:05 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:
>
> > >>>>>> On Mar 16, 6:42 am, Hankie <9-11tech job...@usamakook.org>
> > >>>>>> continued to display his mental disabilities:
>
>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 12:15 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook lied:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high
> > >>>>>>>>> rise" that collapsed from fire.
> > >>>>>>>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>
> > > Then why doesn't the WTC Towers look like the Windsor after it
> > > "collapsed?"
>
> > >>>>> Sure.
>
> > >>>> Of course. Proven FACT that you cannot deny. Q.E.D. Case
> > >>>> closed.
>
> > >>> Then why do you snip the link 3 times to keep the world from
> > >>> seeing
> > >>> you bullshit lies.
>
> > >> Well, I know why you snipped the part where he proves that you
> > >> see a picture of concrete, and call it steel.
>
> > > Most of the steel superstructure and the concrete core of the
> > > Windsor building remains.
>
> > The concrete remained somewhat in place, and the steel remained, but
> > in the hole. DUH!
>
> The hole in your head?
Yours, kook,
It is simple, undisputed historical FACT that THE ENTIRE steel framed
portion of Windsor Tower COLLAPSED COMPLETELY DUE ONLY TO FIRE.
This simply cannot be denied. The pictures you show depict the
remaining reinforced concrete frame, PROVING ME RIGHT and YOU WRONG.
Q.E.D.
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
> >On Mar 18, 8:30=A0am, moron...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moron)
> Steel sucks as a heat sink.
>
> >> >All that steel was connected even if I give you 25% columns destroyed
> >> >by the jets which is a very high figure, the structure was at least
> >> >3.5 times redundant.
>
> >> The columns were loaded to 40-50% of their compression failure pressure
> >> _at room temperature_. Knock out several of them and the others get
> >> an increased load, but not enough to cause failure (the building remained
> >> standing). Then heat those columns in a fire...
>
> >Maybe in a blast furnace.
> >1 hour office fire won't do it Clem.
>
> Let's discuss this. In the case of the towers, it was the trusses that
> were the most affected, not the columns.
Trusses were connected to the columns on both ends.
Beside the fires were not hot enough.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
NIST never proves anything otherwise.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf
>First the trusses were all
> relatively lightweight, not much mass to heat. Second, the trusses are
> located just below the ceiling - the hottest place in a fire. Third,
> trusses aren't a solid sheet of metal like an I-beam, they have component
> parts where local heating could cause just that part to fail -- but that
> could cause the whole truss to warp, if not fail outright.
Not in "office" fires.
UL tests showed marginal sagging at temperatures higher than any at
the WTC.
NIST had to exaggerate the sagging by a factor of ten.
They lied.
(Remember,
> the protective insulation was knocked off, if not completely, definitely
> it was in many spots). We have photos showing the warped trusses.
>
A few trusses bent by the jet.
Even NIST doesn't claim photos from fire because the smoke was too
thick.
You are lying.
> Firefighters fear warehouse-type buildings with truss construction.
Apples, oranges.
Warehouses span much greater distances without central support.
> It's too easy for a large fire to cause truss failure which causes a
> ceiling collapse. Those towers were 110 of those warehouses, stacked on
> top of each other!
>
Hardly.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/construction.html
> >There was no evidence of any fire of 1500 degrees needed to soften
> >steel much less 3.5 times redundant core columns and perimeter
> >columns.
>
> 40% loading is 2.5 times redundant, not 3.5 times. But regardless, it
> was the trusses that went first,
Conjecture.
>we can see from the photos just before
> collapse how they were so warped and bent.
>
Cite?
> >> >That isn't how fire works.
>
> >> As if you know _anything_ about how fires work. NOT.
> >I've seen my share.
>
> oooh... you've seen fires, which means that you must know more than
> all those fire safety companies, building code writers, firefighters etc.
> etc.
>
> >> Why won't you tell us why ALL building codes require steel framing to
> >> be fireproofed?
>
> >The Towers and 7 were fireproofed.
>
> Now, tell us why they would bother to do so.
>
> >> (besides, the outer columns, not the core, failed first.
Claim contradictory to all the evidence.
>The core stood
> >> for some seconds)
> >Tower 2 started to tip sideways then disappeared in a cloud of dust
>
> Yes. One side of the exterior wall failed as trusses pulled the columns
> in, the load transferred to adjacent columns and the core which started
> failing causing the upper section to tilt as a block.
No.
The chopped corner of tower 2 collapsed.
The top went 22% tilt and miraculously disintegrated into a dust cloud
rather than following the laws of physics and continuing to fall over
sideways.
>It's hard to tell
> what happened inside the dust, but certainly the failing columns quickly
> went along the entire floors and then as the now-unsupported top part fell
> and impacted the bottom parts, they were destroyed, and as the debris fell
> below it kept destroying everything on the way down, pretty much what we
> saw.
>
I saw massive expulsions of dust upward, downward, and out of the
windows 30 stories below.
Not "crumbling steel."
> >instead of falling off sideways as it should have according to the
> >laws of physics.
>
> You stooopid kooktard!! How many times do you have to be told that
> gravity pulls down, not sideways!!!
Yup.
And the top heavy top of the building should have continued to topple
as it started.
>Didn't you learn this when you were
> still a baby?
>
Yup.
Built lots of things and knocked them down.
Funny thing is I could build a building with my erector set and kick
it around the block and it never came apart.
Just got bent to hell.
> >Tower 1, the core collapses first as proven in the videos showing the
> >antenna dropping before anything else moves.
>
> The upper floors of the towers were a complex set of trusses to support
> antennas. It was called a hat truss.
Held up by the perimeter and core columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html
They were essentially a solid
> block, so the antenna and the rest of the top would move as a unit. What
> likely happened is, as the perimeter wall failed,
No.
There is no failure seen until AFTER the antenna starts to descend.
>the floors above the
> failure were hanging from the hat truss,
Wrong.
All the floors were connected to the core and perimeter columns.
>which transferred the load to
> the core and other perimeter walls. This overload did cause failure
> in the core,
47 core columns do not "fail" simultaneously without "timed" help.
>probably at the fire floors or above as well as overloading
> the rest of the perimeter walls. But this was well _after_ the trusses
> caused the initial perimeter wall failure.
>
BS.
> Besides, we have videos showing the core standing for a few seconds
> after the collapse, but its top was below the fire floors.
That's the bottom.
Has nothing to do with the collapse zone.
Yea some, just before it turns to dust falling straight down.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html#anchor1150948
How did that happen?
The rest of you conjecture is a joke.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf
Al Dykes
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 1:16=A0pm, moron...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moron)
>wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
>> >On Mar 18, 8:30=3DA0am, moron...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moron)
>> >wrote:
>> >> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
>> >> >On Mar 16, 11:51=3D3DA0am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Yet you have not one picture or cite for any "steel high
>> >> >> >>>>>>> rise" that collapsed from fire.
>> >> >> >>>>>> Pssst: WINDSOR TOWER, you stupid kookshit.
>> >> >Then why doesn't the WTC Towers look like the Windsor after it
>> >> >"collapsed?"
>>
>> >> Ummm, the WTC towers didn't have a fire-resistant concrete core?
>>
>> >No, it had a huge heat sink mde up of 47 core columns.
>a
>> >> >> picture of concrete, and call it steel.
>> >> >Most of the steel superstructure and the concrete core of the Windsor
>> >> >building remains.
>>
>> >> left standing. =3DA0
>> >Liar.
>>
>> You're back to not responding other than posting kooklinks again.
>>
>> >It was an EXCELLENT demonstration of how steel weakens
>> >> in a huge fire, and concrete holds up better.
>>
>> Again, no response other than kooklinks.
>>
>> >> >A few floors collapsed after 18 hours by peeling off the sides.
>> >> >Whooppeefuck.
>>
>> >> HAHAHAH!!!! Stupid kooktard denying reality. ALL of the steel framing
>g.
>> >You lie through your teeth.
>>
>> C'mon, can't you respond more than a single sentence?
>>
>> >> Why are you in such Denial?
>>
>> >> >The core is a HUGE heat sink to the rest of the building.
>>
>> >Dumb ass.
>> >Liar.
>>
>> OK, two sentences this time, but only three words.
>> I want discussion!
>>
>> >>Ever see a blacksmith at
>ing to
>> >> yellow-white hot, but the steel further away is only red hot and even
>with
>> >> gloved hands.
>>
>> >No.
>> >He uses tonges.
>>
>> heating a portion where the bend is to be yellow-hot and bending the rod
>> with gloved hands.
>>
>You did it with a beam weighing tons?
The fisrt steel to fail due to heat in WTC1/2 was the steel truss
flooring system. It's made or heavy-gauge sheetmetal. Firemen train
for the risks of fighting fires in truss-framed buildings.
NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/
(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )
All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The
mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that
determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater
resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length
because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb
heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a
lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated
to its failure temperature much faster.
Once the failure temperature is reached, heavy steel trusses and
lightweight metal trusses will react to the fire and fail in a similar
manner. A steel member fails at the internal temperature of the steel
and not at the ambient air temperature. This temperature is often
referred to as the critical temperature of the steel member.
Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight Construction
Fire Research Project indicate that unprotected lightweight steel
C-joists fail within 4 to 6 minutes of exposure to fire [Grundahl
1992]. Testing conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now known as
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST) showed
that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200: F in 6 to 8
minutes [Brannigan 1999]. Table D-1 illustrates that steel retains
only 25% of its original strength at 1,200: F and retains only half
its original strength at approximately 900 :F. Building design
calculations are based on original strength at normal temperatures. At
elevated temperatures, steel may retain no excess strength.
...steel loses strength when exposed to temperatures commonly found in
structural fires. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, which means
it can transfer heat away from a localized source and act as a heat
sink. As long as the flame impingement is localized, the steel can
transfer heat to other regions of the member-and thus the time to
reach the critical temperature is delayed. If an intense fire is
evenly distributed along the steel member, the critical temperature
may be reached very quickly. Steel also has a high coefficient of
expansion that results in the expansion of steel members as they are
heated. As an example, a 50-foot-long steel beam heated uniformly over
its length from 720 to 9720 F will expand in length by 3.9 inches. The
same beam uniformly heated to 8000 F would expand by 3.2 inches; if
heated to 1,2000 F, the beam would expand by 4.9 inches [Grundahl
1991; Cotes 1997].
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
knews4...@yahoo.com
> In article <46f4d80f-0341-4989-af17-c1755fa7c...@k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Proof?
>It's made or heavy-gauge sheetmetal. Firemen train
> for the risks of fighting fires in truss-framed buildings.
>
So?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
The trusses could all "fall down at once" and it wouldn't rip the core
to shreds.
"Maybe" there would be trusses hanging off the sides like the Windsor
Tower.
Maybe the perimeter columns would be pulled in.
But NIST doesn't provide evidence for any of it.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf
The core superstructure would have stood up just like the Windsor.
1 hour fires don't do any of what was seen.
Even NIST states that the hottest time of the fires were within the
first twenty minutes.
Why wouldn't the building fail when the fires are at their most
intense time rather than when they were starving?