???
I hate missing out on the funny, can someone 'splain it to me?
Thanks. I needed to have my psyche scarred by another crappy South Park clip.
I hate the f***ing show. It used to be funny, but now they are just in it to see how far they can push the limits. Boooooringgg.
Here ya go.
Have fun.
yall are chodes
yall are like those dudes in austin who have hosted the atheists hour for like ten years, yall love it so much, defend it so hard, making it clear there really is a god
I think he has given up trying to really prove his 9-11 bullpuckey. He has moved on to the next fairy tale about the earth only being 10,000 years old.
HA!
Thank you for that mildly intelligible outburst.
It made me laugh. It made me cry. It made me wonder what you have been drinking. It made me wonder why I am not drinking.
me like to think me different
...the Bush-9/11 faith crowd is incapable of abstract thought...either the Bush administration and Rudy 9u11ani acted heroically on and the days and months leading to 9/11 or they didn't...
Let's examine this premise...
LA Times (06/10/05) [Reprinted at: informationclearinghouse.info]"A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday, when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.
The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
strike 1...
---
Boston Globe"Five months before Sept. 11, 2001, the officers responsible for defending American airspace wanted to test their ability to prevent a hijacked airliner from being crashed into the Pentagon, but the scenario was rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as impractical, a Joint Chiefs spokesman confirmed yesterday.
The disclosure was made after a government watchdog group released a leaked e-mail from a former official at the North American Air Defense Command. In the message, the official told colleagues a week after the attacks that in April 2001 NORAD requested that war games run by the Joint Chiefs include an ''event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline . . . and fly it into the Pentagon."
Last night, Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Commander Dan Hetlage confirmed the account, saying: ''That scenario was rejected because it would have become a whole exercise in and of itself. It wasn't looked on at the time as being practicable."
The NORAD proposal is the clearest sign yet that national security officials were worried before 9/11 about terrorists using hijacked airliners as missiles, despite testimony that senior leaders, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, didn't know of such concerns.
Strike 2....
----
CNNThe so-called "Phoenix memo," written July 10, 2001, by FBI agent Kenneth Williams, cited supporters of Osama bin Laden "attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona."
The memo apparently never reached the highest levels of the FBI, the CIA or the Justice Department until after September 11.
It states that law enforcement officials began examining questions about Arab students attending U.S. flight schools in April 2000, almost 17 months before the September 11 terrorist attacks. It is under renewed scrutiny amid questions over whether the government missed clues that might have alerted authorities to impending attacks on New York and Washington."
Strike 3...
Last edited by Nbadan; 01-31-2009 at 12:55 AM.
The so-called truther crowd is incapable of saying what they think really happened on 9/11.
They didn't. The actual day of they did ok. It was a tough time.either the Bush administration and Rudy 9u11ani acted heroically on and the days and months leading to 9/11 or they didn't...
No, let's see you post what you think really happened on 9/11.Let's examine this premise...
Just the place for a Snark" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it
Twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
http://books.google.com/books?id=kF4...result#PPA3,M1
Bump, cause I am gonna need a link to smack poor mouse on the nose again.
...7 years later NIST says that WTC7 collapsed caused by events that they themselves ruled out years earlier, but that's good enough for dumpster and Randomlie...
Highly inaccurate statement, but seven years later it begs the question:
What do you think really happened on 9/11, dan?
Garden gnomes. Just as likely as anything put forward by 911 twoofer idiots.
The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.
The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)
...A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 98/148)
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases ac ulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)
* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos
Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.
Real 911 Research
Sheeple
The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.
The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).
...
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases ac ulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:
* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos
Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.
Real 911 Research
Sheeple
Mouse did it !!!
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos
The bald-faced lies are the best.
Chump is right only half the time.
so what was the motive for WTC 7 to come down?...7 years later NIST says that WTC7 collapsed caused by events that they themselves ruled out years earlier, but that's good enough for dumpster and Randomlie...
Did you even read what you copied and pasted?
The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.
The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).
...
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases ac ulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:
* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos
Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.
Real 911 Research
Sheeple
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
