Reply With Quote
That would require an open independent investigation and we know the 9/11 commission already did all that.
I knew Agloco was one of LJs TRolls when I first ran into him but it didn't bother me until he called me out for getting kicked out of MIT.
Not to mention the fact that posters here feel if they aren't anti Obama, support Evolution, and think WTC7 fell down due to Gravity they wont look like true Republicans. And that is a Sin around here.
its really an ego thing.
That would require an open independent investigation and we know the 9/11 commission already did all that.
So Dan, tell me in your own words what you think that the NW paper is claiming and what the random blogger you are asserting is claiming.
From the article they cite in their paper:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/405.pdf
They are talking about the support columns that bear the weight of the entire structure. Are you really saying they do not know how the building was structured?
You aren't saying . You are just copying and pasting and as I backtrack through what you are posting I quickly realize that you are grouping from NIST and stupidity like your wood stove 'analysis' together.
I am just going to ridicule you now. You deserve no better than WC as this has entered his level of stupidity and wishful thinking.
No, the commission did not test the dust.
Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?
He's just trying to avoid answering my question that actually has to do with the subject of the thread.
Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?
That is a good question I am always for multiple examinations of the same evidence.
Just like when the same bone sample is sent to 4 different carbon 14 test sites and they come back with 4 different dates,
Sorry Nbadan but Chump has a point why not another conformation outside that circle?
You are an idiot:
The entire premise of the paper rests on claiming the simplifying assumptions employed describe an extreme case which favors survival, therefore all other scenarios must also lead to total collapse.
Now deductive reasoning doesn't work?
I know it was sarcasm.
The argument is that if you concede that the support trusses failed then that would be the most resistance provided.
You can put up scenarios where the connections to said supports failed instead but that is not the argument. Instead of arguing that the trusses didn't fail beyond your ty attempt at thermodynamics by woodstove comparison you try to make a different ty argument.
Of course if the supports didn't fail that would be a 'better' case scenario.
Like WC, you suck at modeling.
but in all fairness what I have seen posted in the ST Politics forum is 100% more info that you got with this...
Most of what I know about 9/11 did not come from that report tbh.
but in all fairness what I have seen posted in the ST Politics forum is 100% more info that you got with this...
My administration worked very hard on that fairy tale.
In fact, how did you get a Photoshopped copy of it anyway?
Here is the official 9/11 Commission Report
but every truss on every floor failing at the same time in perfect free fall time?
this was on Benny Johnson's podcast
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chair Sen. Ron Johnson says that 9/11 was a "controlled demolition" and there has been a "cover up" of massive amounts of evidence, many "questions" need to be answered
The Magic Negro damn well better pray it weren't an inside job, eh, kids? If it was TMN is goiin' straight to .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
