9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Ideas (was crapola--Re: Aether flowing over particles and their fields surrounding them)
Next: 9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
From: Henry on 15 Mar 2010 15:37 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. 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." -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Michael Moroney on 15 Mar 2010 16:09 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> writes: >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.
From: AllYou! on 16 Mar 2010 06:46 In news:8390be35-565a-4d33-98b9-c9a3aa866fa7(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)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.
From: Henry on 16 Mar 2010 08:42 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. 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." -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 16 Mar 2010 08:48
In news:hnnu9a$4je$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)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? |