New Evidence that World Trade Center was Not a Surprise – More lies?

submitted by salvia_d from armstrongeconomics.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]VirgilGriff 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Guys

Guys

Get this

We're going to blow up WTC-7 with explosive charges

BUT, to hide the conspiracy

We're going to have 20 people hijack four planes and crash two of them into WTC-1 and 2 and kill thousands of people

Then once those buildings collapse we're going to set off the charges in WTC-7

And we're going to plant the charges so well, that even if it's hit by debris and on fire, they'll still work

And to make sure none of the hundreds of people involved in this massive conspiracy ever talk about it, get this

We're going to tell them not to talk about it, ever.

And we'll convince some Arabs to take credit for it, by asking them

And the reason we're going to do all this, is because we want to make 30 trillion dollars disappear

Even though we make trillions of dollars disappear every single year, and will make much more than that disappear in the subsequent two decades of war.

[–]Preachy_Jerk 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Guys Guys Get this

Instead of collecting the physical evidence and doing a thorough forensic engineering investigation to understand how these thousands of people were killed and prevent similar disasters in the future, we're just going to throw it all in the garbage.

Then we'll get some asshole on the internet to make a list of unsubstantiated assumptions and strawmen, and based on whether he finds these subjectively plausible or not, that's how we will obtain scientific conclusions about what happened and the physical behavior of steel and concrete skyscrapers. Well, not exactly scientific, but just as good.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Guys, get this, a retarded zoomer has never heard about the 9/11 commission and wasn't alive to see the literally nonstop talk about 9/11 for years in the media, agonizing over every detail. And this retarded zoomer doesn't understand that "how can we prevent this in the future?" was beaten to death, and we're still suffering from the "emergency, temporary legislation" that came from it, like the USA PATRIOT Act, and other bullshit like DHS and TSA.

Then we'll get some asshole on the internet to make a list of unsubstantiated assumptions and strawmen, and based on whether he finds these subjectively plausible or not, that's how we will obtain scientific conclusions about what happened and the physical behavior of steel and concrete skyscrapers.

Oh no, you're one of the fucking retarded babyzoomers that doesn't understand the connection between the load bearing capacity of steel and its inverse relationship to its temperature. Go read the 9/11 commission report that you just learned existed. Go look at footage of the damaged face of WTC-7 and read up on how it was constructed. And also make at least a token effort to address my argument, which isn't a strawman, it's an accurate criticism of the idiocy of the notion that the best way to destroy a roomfull of documents is to crash four planes into three buildings and a field while simultaneously planning a controlled demolition of the entire building that holds the papers. You fucking mongoloid.

[–]Preachy_Jerk 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's funny when retards think other people are retarded.

The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't address the physical aspects of the destruction of the buildings, like I was, so I don't know why you brought that up. It was released before the NIST "investigations" were even finished. And your "argument" is just retardation - you're purporting to answer a scientific question [what caused the destruction of the buildings] based on the plausibility of a scenario you pretty much made up.

Engineers aren't as retarded as you are. They know heat weakens steel. That's why skyscrapers (including the North Tower, for three hours, without sprinklers in 1975) have survived thousands of major fires over the last century and a half. Steel conducts heat, you dummy. It dissipates the heat into the rest of the steel structure - 100,000 tons of heat sink for each of the Twin Towers. They were built with a redundancy factor of 3 to 5 times stronger than they needed to be to support the required loads. I guess if you assumed that the people who built them were as retarded as you are, it would make more sense for them to collapse. But they weren't that retarded.

If you weren't retarded, and had actually come to this discussion prepared, you would know that NIST, in their "not statistically significant" examination of physical evidence, looked for evidence of temperatures high enough to weaken steel and didn't find it. None of the samples of steel they looked at had any evidence of steel reaching temperatures higher than 250° C.

But unfortunately you are retarded, and like other retards you are defending the official story without knowing what it is. "Go look at footage of the damaged face of WTC-7" So fucking what? Other buildings got seriously damaged too, and didn't collapse like controlled demolition. The official story explicitly denies that damage caused the collapse of WTC-7. And you didn't know that and you're still wasting my time with retardation.

"How it was constructed" I assume you're talking about other factors debunked in the NIST FAQ you haven't bothered to read.

It's retarded for you to even have an opinion about this without even knowing what the official story is. Please get your shit together before you get back to me.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't address the physical aspects of the destruction of the buildings, like I was, so I don't know why you brought that up. It was released before the NIST "investigations" were even finished. And your "argument" is just retardation - you're purporting to answer a scientific question [what caused the destruction of the buildings] based on the plausibility of a scenario you pretty much made up.

Imagine not knowing that the NIST report you quoted, as well as the 9/11 commission report, both discuss how the planes crashed into the insulation-coated steel supports of the towers, destroying the first supports they crashed into and blowing apart much of the fire-suppressant material, and how the subsequent hour of fire weakened the remaining steel enough for it to bend and buckle.

Engineers aren't as retarded as you are. They know heat weakens steel.

9/11 truthers don't seem to know this. "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams!" That was never the claim.

That's why skyscrapers (including the North Tower, for three hours, without sprinklers in 1975) have survived thousands of major fires over the last century and a half. Steel conducts heat, you dummy. It dissipates the heat into the rest of the steel structure - 100,000 tons of heat sink for each of the Twin Towers. They were built with a redundancy factor of 3 to 5 times stronger than they needed to be to support the required loads. I guess if you assumed that the people who built them were as retarded as you are, it would make more sense for them to collapse. But they weren't that retarded.

Wow. If a plane had crashed into the North Tower, destroying the support and blowing apart the insulation material designed to give fire crews time enough to respond before the steel was sufficiently weakened, I'd be impressed by the comparison.

Why didn't you volunteer the information that both reports discuss regarding the effects of 737s crashing into the buildings? Do you think it's not relevant to a discussion on the steel supports?

looked for evidence of temperatures high enough to weaken steel and didn't find it.

You mean beyond saying that the temperature of jet fuel and normal office crap is enough to sufficiently weaken steel.

But unfortunately you are retarded, and like other retards you are defending the official story without knowing what it is.

Between the two of us I'm the only one who's even been capable of repeating the official story. You can't even reproduce the story that you're claiming is so stupid that it should be dismissed by armchair faggots like yourself.

"Go look at footage of the damaged face of WTC-7" So fucking what?

Are you unfamiliar with the effect of the superstructure of that building and how it's integral to its design? Perhaps that part of the report was concealed by the balls hanging over your eyes as you took a few more inches of cock into your mouth.

Other buildings got seriously damaged too, and didn't collapse like controlled demolition.

That proves it!

None of the samples of steel they looked at had any evidence of steel reaching temperatures higher than 250° C.

They said the jetfuel fire in the buildings was fuel-rich and had diffuse flame, reaching 650 degrees C or higher. I don't expect you read that part either.

The official story explicitly denies that damage caused the collapse of WTC-7.

lol, you don't even know the official story and yet you're fully willing to regurgitate a cum-cocktail mixed with a bunch of bullshit you heard from a millenial faggot recording "Loose Change"

You should limit your projection to the vomiting you do after that Dorito-dust encrusted conspiracy theorist cock goes a little too far into your throat.