"We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to 'pancake' at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."

[Midex]

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm


The people in Usenet here who have defended the official story and
attacked 9/11 Truthers who are trying to get the evidence and ideas
and knowledge base out to the people to warn everyone are they
greatest criminals of humanity of our generation.

Yes thats you Tropi/Tex/Sunny of www.whackingday.com and all your
puppets and all your friends from Israel.

We WILL have you hunted down after the major crime network has been
overthrown and brought to trial. You Neo-Nazis will not escape the
claws of JUSTICE.

[Vandar]

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

[War Office]

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-24


Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

[Tex]

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

Sure Jake. Remember this?

"The ACWM is calling for justice. The people will rise on Sept 11 06 - This
is the day of judgement. Be in Canberra on that day and prepare within your
own group weapons and means to attack Canberra and burn it down.

There is already a 100,000 strong who will be there. We have military
weapons and we are losely organised. It will be a peoples revolution. It
will be a book in history you can tell your children about.

Be strong. Be strong, "

[Serge]

Post by Tex

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

Sure Jake. Remember this?
"The ACWM is calling for justice. The people will rise on Sept 11 06 -
This is the day of judgement. Be in Canberra on that day and prepare
within your own group weapons and means to attack Canberra and burn it
down.
There is already a 100,000 strong who will be there. We have military
weapons and we are losely organised. It will be a peoples revolution. It
will be a book in history you can tell your children about.
Be strong. Be strong, "

Here's something that makes that pale by comparison.....

Post by Tex

Post by War Office

BTW, have you worked out which broadband account that Sunny and
I are "dialing up"?

I believe the following is a direct quote by you....
"Mea Culpa Maxima on dial-up broadband."
Says it all really. <huge snigger>

Does it ? Can you or that idiot Jake, explain to me how I can dial up
my ISP and/or other ISP, on my Telstra cable modem?

Easy. Put a FDSN switch into an outwared facing router.

Post by War Office
Drop a copy of the procedure to bigpond as well, so they can revise
their Internet plans.

Telstra already know. So do CISCO.
Mark Addinall.

[Midex]

Post by Tex

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

Sure Jake. Remember this?
"The ACWM is calling for justice. The people will rise on Sept 11 06 - This
is the day of judgement. Be in Canberra on that day and prepare within your
own group weapons and means to attack Canberra and burn it down.
There is already a 100,000 strong who will be there. We have military
weapons and we are losely organised. It will be a peoples revolution. It
will be a book in history you can tell your children about.
Be strong. Be strong, "

I'm gald you appreciate my satire.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"

"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."

What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."

"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."

"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

"progressive collapse" - pancake theory.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

"progressive collapse" - pancake theory.

Wrong

[Tex]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Maybe Jake is keeping his "100,000-strong private army" there

[BDK]

Post by Tex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Maybe Jake is keeping his "100,000-strong private army" there

They are bivouacked in Central Park, disguised as "bums/hoboes", right?

Just waiting for Jake to send the "go code"....then they attack?

Thousands of shopping carts, on the move.

My GAWD!! (taking glasses off dramatically).

BDK

BDK

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.

And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.

They say this here:

"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."

See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."

So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!


Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
that the 3 towers came down in controlled demolition:
www.ae911truth.org


Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar? If not then SHUT THE
FUCK UP!
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

[animal05]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of
Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

That has to be the lamest verbage on a "diploma" I have ever seen.

[Midex]

Post by animal05

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of
Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

That has to be the lamest verbage on a "diploma" I have ever seen.

Oh its a diploma now is it? And the verbage on Melbourne University
degrees is "lame".

You even deny my qualifcation. You deny everything. You're an idiot.

[BDK]

Post by Midex

Post by animal05

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of
Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

That has to be the lamest verbage on a "diploma" I have ever seen.

Oh its a diploma now is it? And the verbage on Melbourne University
degrees is "lame".
You even deny my qualifcation. You deny everything. You're an idiot.

Midol, when someone posts as many "whoppers" as you have, it's very hard
to take that person seriously.

Not that there was much danger of that anyway.

BDK

[BDK]

In article <DGpoi.12596$***@news01.roc.ny>, ***@yahoo.com
says...

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

I bet it's a NICE color printer..

BDK

[Midex]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.

You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni. Sorry that reality of 911 threates to
shatter your world view. Thats your problem. Deal with it.

[Tex]

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of
Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So jakey, why can't you tell us the name of any of the units you did, or who
your tutors and lecturers were?

[Serge]

Post by Tex

Post by Midex
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So jakey, why can't you tell us the name of any of the units you did,
or who your tutors and lecturers were?

Christ! Tex must have a hide as thick as a rhinoceros.

He's just been dragged face down through his own shit by Mark Addinall,
to the point where he screamed Uncle, and blubbered.....
"Mea Culpa Maxima on dial-up broadband."

Yet here he is, bold as brass, pretending nothing happened.

Hello! Tex. HELLO!

You've just been discredited you bloody hayseed. You're a laughing stock.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Serge

Post by Tex

Post by Midex
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So jakey, why can't you tell us the name of any of the units you did,
or who your tutors and lecturers were?

Christ! Tex must have a hide as thick as a rhinoceros.

Is that what sent you scurrying away in complete surrender? :)

http://tinyurl.com/2wppdp

Post by Serge
He's just been dragged face down through his own shit by Mark Addinall,
to the point where he screamed Uncle, and blubbered.....
"Mea Culpa Maxima on dial-up broadband."

Well, it seems you didn't know about dil-up broadband either Sergey:

"> You are aware you don't "dial" a broadband account,

Post by Serge
aren't you Sergey?

Certainly. "
- serge, may 4 2007

"> how you can "dial up" to a broadband account
Didn't say you could."
- serge may 31 2007

Woops :)

Post by Serge
Yet here he is, bold as brass, pretending nothing happened.

On the contrary, I'm here to point out how you chickened out:

http://tinyurl.com/2wppdp

BTW, have you made up your mind about whether or not Sunny and I are
the same person? Your claim seems to be shifting quite a lot recently

Post by Serge
Hello! Tex. HELLO!

Hello Sergey. Are you headed for another public nervous breakdown?

Post by Serge
You've just been discredited you bloody hayseed. You're a laughing stock.

You're the one who scurried away in complete surrender :)

http://tinyurl.com/2wppdp

[War Office]

Post by Tex

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of
Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So jakey, why can't you tell us the name of any of the units you did, or who
your tutors and lecturers were?

Youve been told before and those issues are over a year old.

This is "No 10. Associate opponent charges with old news" tactic out
of hte ZIonist jew handbook 25 Rules of Disinformation:
http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by War Office

Post by Tex

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of
Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So jakey, why can't you tell us the name of any of the units you did, or who
your tutors and lecturers were?

Youve been told before

No jakey, you have never once answered these questions

Post by War Office
and those issues are over a year old.

Speaking of which, your "revolution" will soon be a year overdue

[Vandar]

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.

Neither do you.

Post by Midex
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So?

Post by Midex
Sorry that reality of 911 threates to
shatter your world view. Thats your problem. Deal with it.

*yawn*

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.

Neither do you.

Post by Midex
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So?

Post by Midex
Sorry that reality of 911 threates to
shatter your world view. Thats your problem. Deal with it.

And you don't. You're not qualified to debate the controlled
demolition hypothesis. We at www.ae911truth.com are qualified and 200
structural engineers and architects have come to the same conclusion.
Game over.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.

Neither do you.

Post by Midex
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

So?

Post by Midex
Sorry that reality of 911 threates to
shatter your world view. Thats your problem. Deal with it.

And you don't.

Neither do you.

Post by War Office
You're not qualified to debate the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Neither are you.

Post by War Office
We at www.ae911truth.com

You are neither an architect nor an engineer.

Post by War Office
are qualified

No you aren't.

Post by War Office
and 200 structural engineers

That don't exist.

Post by War Office
and architects

That also don't exist.

Post by War Office
have come to the same conclusion.

And the rest of the planet has reached the same conclusion about you. So
what?

Post by War Office
Game over.

Oh yeah... You think the US government intentionally slaughtered 3,000
of its own citizens in one morning so they could blame a group based in
Afghanistan as a reason to attack Iraq is just a "game".

If the game is over, what was the point of the game?

[w***@bellsouth.net]

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

Which means you paid alot of money and maybe showed up for class.
This does not equate to you learning anything.

I know a lot of idiots with Degrees. I'll add you to the list.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Have all the opinions you want. They're free. Just don't confuse
them with reality."-Solomon Short.

[War Office]

Post by w***@bellsouth.net

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

So NIST say they don't support pancake theory which they say is based
on the premise of PROGRESSIVE collapse, and then they go on and
describe what they think happened and basically they describe the
pancake theory?
Call it what you want. Same thing.
And by the way NIST didn't do any calculations to justify anything
that happened AFTER t=0 where t=0 is the first moment that the
building is seen to start falling.
"Some 200 technical experts-including about 85 career NIST experts and
125 leading experts from the private sector and academia-reviewed tens
of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people,
reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs,
analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory
tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events
that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until
they began to collapse."
See that last sentence? "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated
computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the
moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."
So of course NIST don't support the pancake theory. They don't support
ANY theory of the collapse mechanism. They DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT!!!!

You have an extremely warped view of what the NIST did and did not do.

Post by War Office
Here are some 200 technical experts, comprised of Architects,
structural engineers, and scientists, who are INDEPENDENT and who have
investigated NIST's report and declare it as fraudulent and conclude
www.ae911truth.org
Got a degree in engineering or science Vandar?

Maybe.
Like you, I have 137 Master's Degrees in every discipline related to
anything anywhere. I've also worked with everyone in every field and
have conducted every test on everything.
I'd tell you more, but it's a national secret.

Post by War Office
If not then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny how you don't hold members of your precious little "truth"
movement to the same standard.

Post by War Office
http://australian911truthmovement.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-bsc.html

So you have a color printer. Am I supposed to be impressed?

you're an idiot.
You don't have any relevant qualifications so shut up.
I have a BSc from Melbourne Uni.

Which means you paid alot of money and maybe showed up for class.
This does not equate to you learning anything.

I didn't pay a single cent for my degree. It was before upfront fees
were introduced. Further the governmnet paid for me to study on
Austudy. So stick it up your ignorant nostrils.

Post by w***@bellsouth.net
I know a lot of idiots with Degrees. I'll add you to the list.

You're out of your area of expertise. Leave this to the scientists and
engineers.

Post by w***@bellsouth.net
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Have all the opinions you want. They're free. Just don't confuse
them with reality."-Solomon Short.

[george]

Post by War Office
You're out of your area of expertise. Leave this to the scientists and
engineers.

WE have.
Its amusing that most of your 'experts' have degrees in theology
giving the indication that you are blinded by an education in belief

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA.27s_pancake_collapse_theory

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"PANCAKE" is. NIST have kindly confessed to that as well:
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"

So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse. Given that
this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"

NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA.27s_pancake_collapse_theory

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

[Midex]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

You're an idiot. Now you're mincing failure and collapse.

What is a collapse? Its a failure. You're an idiot. How can you argue
against what is patently obvious?

[Vandar]

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

You're an idiot. Now you're mincing failure and collapse.
What is a collapse? Its a failure.

Not always. Things can fail without collapsing. Didn't they teach you
that in school?

Post by Midex
You're an idiot. How can you argue
against what is patently obvious?

I'm arguing against what is patently stupid.

[Phatty Boombatty]

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

You're an idiot. Now you're mincing failure and collapse.
What is a collapse? Its a failure.

Not always. Things can fail without collapsing. Didn't they teach you
that in school?

You got it backwards, Vandar. He said "what is a collapse? It's a
failure." He didn't say, "What is a failure? It is a collapse." Might
seem trivial, but it's a world of difference. Of course things can
fail without collapsing, but a collapse of this kind INDICATES some
kind of failure, and in this case, indicates structural failure of 47
massive steel columns, almost simultaneously, to allow for the near
free-fall of the buildings, following the path of MOST resistance.

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex
You're an idiot. How can you argue
against what is patently obvious?

I'm arguing against what is patently stupid.

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

You're an idiot. Now you're mincing failure and collapse.
What is a collapse? Its a failure.

Not always. Things can fail without collapsing. Didn't they teach you
that in school?

Post by Midex
You're an idiot. How can you argue
against what is patently obvious?

I'm arguing against what is patently stupid.

You're claiming that 200 structural and architectural engineers at
www.ae911truth.com are patently stupid?
You're claiming that the laws of physics are patently stupid? The law
of Inertia? The law of gravity? The law of Momentum?

You're an idiot.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

You're an idiot. Now you're mincing failure and collapse.
What is a collapse? Its a failure.

Not always. Things can fail without collapsing. Didn't they teach you
that in school?

Post by Midex
You're an idiot. How can you argue
against what is patently obvious?

I'm arguing against what is patently stupid.

You're claiming that 200 structural and architectural engineers at
www.ae911truth.com are patently stupid?

First off, skippy, there aren't 200 structural and architectural
engineers listed anywhere on that site.
Second of all, skippy, anyone on that site who tries to claim that the
US government perpetrated 9/11 is, yes, patently stupid.

Post by War Office
You're claiming that the laws of physics are patently stupid?

You don't know jack shit about the laws of physics.

Post by War Office
The law of Inertia? The law of gravity? The law of Momentum?

You know nothing of any of those.

Post by War Office
You're an idiot.

You're outmatched.

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

Rather every scientist and engineer who have studied the data have
concluded that it was a controlled demolition:
www.ae911truth.org

So you're basically a liar.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Post by Vandar
"...our recommendations call attention to the need to have redundant
structural systems to prevent PROGRESSIVE collapse"
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
What you meant to link to was the FEMA report, whose section on the
collapse is, oddly enough, titled "Progression of Collapse".http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
"...the recommendation with regard to PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"...resulting in the initiation of PROGRESSIVE collapse..."
"This inititated a chain of PROGRESSIVE failures that resulted in the
total collapse of the building."

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

uh huh.
When was the last time you were in Manhattan?

Right, I don't need to argue about what the premise of the vernacular
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers"
So what is a pancake collapse? Its a progressive collapse.

No, it's premised on a progressive FAILURE.

Post by War Office
Given that this progressive collapse is the premise of NIST's arguments, I don't
see your point. Thats because you don't have one. You take one single
WORD out of my post and try and mince it. Pancake collapse mechanism
theory is what NIST support.

You're the one who's taking one word (failure) and altering it to "collapse"

Post by War Office
Its like saying: "I don't support rocket theory, I support jet
propulsion theory"
NIST's report is an insult to the intelligence of degreed scientists
and engineers.

Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

Rather every scientist and engineer who have studied the data have
concluded that it was a controlled demolition

Way to go, genius. You just exposed yourself as a liar. NO ONE who has
studied the data has concluded it was a controlled demolition. The only
ones who make that claim are the patently stupid ones, such as yourself,
who whine that they can't see all the data.

[David Johnston]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:55:24 -0700, War Office

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar
Yet it's undisputed by every scientist and engineer who has studied the
data.

Rather every scientist and engineer who have studied the data have

Now you know that isn't true.

[Tankfixer]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA.27s_pancake_collapse_theory

Duh, its Wiki moron.
If I want to go in and put a reference to Klingon Birds of Prey being
the cause I can.

I won't because, well, that info is still classified..

[Midex]

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Duh, its Wiki moron.
If I want to go in and put a reference to Klingon Birds of Prey being
the cause I can.
I won't because, well, that info is still classified..
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

The FEMA report promoted "pancake collapse" theory.

thats the only mechanism without explosives. But the theory fails
because there was no resistance offered clearly because the towers
came down at free-=fall speed which can only be done with explosives.

[Vandar]

Post by Midex

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Duh, its Wiki moron.
If I want to go in and put a reference to Klingon Birds of Prey being
the cause I can.
I won't because, well, that info is still classified..
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

The FEMA report promoted "pancake collapse" theory.

No they didn't.

Post by Midex
thats the only mechanism without explosives. But the theory fails
because there was no resistance offered clearly because the towers
came down at free-=fall speed which can only be done with explosives.

Hardly. Your little degree has failed you.

[BDK]

In article <UP1pi.12693$***@news01.roc.ny>, ***@yahoo.com
says...

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Duh, its Wiki moron.
If I want to go in and put a reference to Klingon Birds of Prey being
the cause I can.
I won't because, well, that info is still classified..
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

The FEMA report promoted "pancake collapse" theory.

No they didn't.

Post by Midex
thats the only mechanism without explosives. But the theory fails
because there was no resistance offered clearly because the towers
came down at free-=fall speed which can only be done with explosives.

Hardly. Your little degree has failed you.

Time for a new, higher res printer, so he can make a much more
impressive diploma, one with finer details, and with more impressive
background "crap", and all that.


Quite.

BDK

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Duh, its Wiki moron.
If I want to go in and put a reference to Klingon Birds of Prey being
the cause I can.
I won't because, well, that info is still classified..
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

The FEMA report promoted "pancake collapse" theory.

No they didn't.

"progressive collapse theory" is pancake collapse theory.

Here is an article about you're stupid word fetish:
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/progressive.html
"Progressive Collapse
Domino, Pancake, Zipper, ... Choose Your Metaphor "

You're like arguing "I don't believe in rocket theory I believe in jet
propulsion theory"

Your tactic is straight out of the Zionist jew handbook of
Disinformation tactics:
http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm

Lets have a look:

Here it is:
------
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
-----------

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex
thats the only mechanism without explosives. But the theory fails
because there was no resistance offered clearly because the towers
came down at free-=fall speed which can only be done with explosives.

Hardly. Your little degree has failed you.

Oh I see. First you deny that I have a BSc and then when finally you
just look like an idiot to deny it you rather now claim my degree has
failed me. And yet you don't even have one! Scoff! Snort! You're a
loser.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Duh, its Wiki moron.
If I want to go in and put a reference to Klingon Birds of Prey being
the cause I can.
I won't because, well, that info is still classified..
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

The FEMA report promoted "pancake collapse" theory.

No they didn't.

"progressive collapse theory" is pancake collapse theory.

Nope.

Post by War Office
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/progressive.html
"Progressive Collapse
Domino, Pancake, Zipper, ... Choose Your Metaphor "

Have anything from any websites whose stated mission isn't to uncover
the "black op" of 9/11?

Post by War Office
You're like arguing "I don't believe in rocket theory I believe in jet
propulsion theory"

You're like arguing "Progressive MAY include pancake, therefore ALL
progressives are pancakes."

Post by War Office
Your tactic is straight out of the Zionist jew handbook of
http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm

Ooooh... the Zionist Jew Handbook.

Are you planning on being batshit crazy your whole life?

Post by War Office
------
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
-----------

That's exactly what you dumbass conspiracy theorists do, which is why
nearly all qualified experts consider you fucking stupid.

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex
thats the only mechanism without explosives. But the theory fails
because there was no resistance offered clearly because the towers
came down at free-=fall speed which can only be done with explosives.

Hardly. Your little degree has failed you.

Oh I see.

No you don't.

Post by War Office
First you deny that I have a BSc

When did I deny you had a BSc?

Post by War Office
and then when finally you
just look like an idiot to deny it you rather now claim my degree has
failed me.

It has. You can be quite certain that if your precious little university
knew you were referencing them at the same time you spew your stupid
little conspiracy theories, they would waste no time in distancing
themselves from everything about you. Same thing BYU did to the
wonderfully inept laughingstock known as Steven Jones.

Post by War Office
And yet you don't even have one!

Yet again the conspiracy theorist makes a claim without any supporting
evidence. What a surprise.

Post by War Office
Scoff! Snort! You're a loser.

Keep up the fight, "winner".

[Tankfixer]

Post by Midex

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first official attempt to
explain the collapse of the towers.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

That site references the NIST report concerning the collapses.

They have changed the website since it was referenced. See the
reference I gave you. See The wiki I gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....

Duh, its Wiki moron.
If I want to go in and put a reference to Klingon Birds of Prey being
the cause I can.
I won't because, well, that info is still classified..

The FEMA report promoted "pancake collapse" theory.
thats the only mechanism without explosives. But the theory fails
because there was no resistance offered clearly because the towers
came down at free-=fall speed which can only be done with explosives.

Why don't you enlighten us on what "freefall speed" is ?

[Tankfixer]

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

Would you like an address sonny boi ?

[War Office]

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

Would you like an address sonny boi ?
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

There is little point now. I am confident that most of you will be
able to be traced. When the criminal mafia has been brought to
Justice, then we will begin a hunt for their nazi drummer boys. You
will all be brought to justice.

[Tankfixer]

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

Post by War Office
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
trial.

Would you like an address sonny boi ?

There is little point now. I am confident that most of you will be
able to be traced. When the criminal mafia has been brought to
Justice, then we will begin a hunt for their nazi drummer boys. You
will all be brought to justice.

Again, coward.
Would you like the address ?

[War Office]

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA.27s_pancake_collapse_theory


Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

[War Office]

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

Yes Vandar, NIST say that they don't support the pancake collapse
theory of FEMA. However, look at what they write:

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns
and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses"
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly
bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of
this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to
the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not
fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."


But then further down they write:

[6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?]
"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of
the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the
supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the
static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to
the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of
the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each
successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."

Sounds like a pancake collapse theory to me, "which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"

Enough of the double speak Vandar. Time to fortify those walls in
Israel. The whole world is going to drag you out to face the courts
for deliberately conspiring to misinform and obstruct the efforts of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.

[Tex]

Post by War Office

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

Yes Vandar, NIST say that they don't support the pancake collapse
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns
and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses"
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly
bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of
this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to
the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not
fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
[6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?]
"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of
the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the
supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the
static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to
the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of
the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each
successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Sounds like a pancake collapse theory to me, "which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"
Enough of the double speak Vandar. Time to fortify those walls in
Israel. The whole world is going to drag you out to face the courts
for deliberately conspiring to misinform and obstruct the efforts of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Go and play with your toy soldiers Jakey

[Tankfixer]

Post by Tex

Post by War Office

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

Yes Vandar, NIST say that they don't support the pancake collapse
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns
and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses"
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly
bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of
this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to
the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not
fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
[6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?]
"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of
the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the
supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the
static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to
the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of
the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each
successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Sounds like a pancake collapse theory to me, "which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"
Enough of the double speak Vandar. Time to fortify those walls in
Israel. The whole world is going to drag you out to face the courts
for deliberately conspiring to misinform and obstruct the efforts of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Go and play with your toy soldiers Jakey

He only has one, and it's small. But it keeps him happy.

[BDK]

Post by Tankfixer

Post by Tex

Post by War Office

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

Yes Vandar, NIST say that they don't support the pancake collapse
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns
and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses"
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly
bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of
this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to
the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not
fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
[6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?]
"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of
the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the
supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the
static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to
the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of
the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each
successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Sounds like a pancake collapse theory to me, "which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"
Enough of the double speak Vandar. Time to fortify those walls in
Israel. The whole world is going to drag you out to face the courts
for deliberately conspiring to misinform and obstruct the efforts of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Go and play with your toy soldiers Jakey

He only has one, and it's small. But it keeps him happy.

Oh my. It's what they call a "Hardened" soldier, right? It battles
Jake's hand every day but tragically falls, limp as a wet noodle, after
a short, but brave fight!



BDK

[Cut Off By Google]

x-no-archive: yes

Post by Tankfixer

Post by Tex

Post by War Office

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

Yes Vandar, NIST say that they don't support the pancake collapse
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns
and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses"
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly
bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of
this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to
the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not
fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
[6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?]
"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of
the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the
supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the
static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to
the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of
the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each
successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Sounds like a pancake collapse theory to me, "which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"
Enough of the double speak Vandar. Time to fortify those walls in
Israel. The whole world is going to drag you out to face the courts
for deliberately conspiring to misinform and obstruct the efforts of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Go and play with your toy soldiers Jakey

He only has one, and it's small. But it keeps him happy.

Fantasizing about other men's dicks. I thought they didn't want your
kind in the army.

Post by Tankfixer
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

[Tankfixer]

Post by Cut Off By Google
x-no-archive: yes

Post by Tankfixer

Post by Tex

Post by War Office

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

Yes Vandar, NIST say that they don't support the pancake collapse
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns
and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses"
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly
bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of
this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to
the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not
fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
[6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?]
"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of
the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the
supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the
static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to
the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of
the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each
successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Sounds like a pancake collapse theory to me, "which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"
Enough of the double speak Vandar. Time to fortify those walls in
Israel. The whole world is going to drag you out to face the courts
for deliberately conspiring to misinform and obstruct the efforts of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Go and play with your toy soldiers Jakey

He only has one, and it's small. But it keeps him happy.

Fantasizing about other men's dicks. I thought they didn't want your
kind in the army.

I was just providing the intel on our boi..

Now what you choose to do with it....

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by War Office

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

FEMA's pancake collapse theory was the first Official explanation and
widely promoted in 2001 and 2002.
It was thoroughly debunked and discredit by the group of people you
refer to as "conspiracists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#FEMA....
Like I said Vandar. You and your ilk are the greatest criminals of
humanity of our generation. You WILL be hunted down and brought to
justice.

Yes Vandar, NIST say that they don't support the pancake collapse
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse,
which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the
WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns
and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses"
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly
bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of
this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to
the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not
fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
[6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9
seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from
similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?]
"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of
the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the
supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the
static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to
the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of
the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop
or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each
successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Sounds like a pancake collapse theory to me, "which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"

It sounds like a pancake collapse to you because you have no clue what
constitutes a pancake collapse and you want it to be a pancake collapse.

Post by War Office
Enough of the double speak Vandar.

You're going to stop?

Post by War Office
Time to fortify those walls in
Israel. The whole world is going to drag you out to face the courts
for deliberately conspiring to misinform and obstruct the efforts of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

As if "misleading" you conspiracy clowns is a crime.

[Corrupted Nutsack]

Post by Vandar
Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

Fuck, no shit?

[sj]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:16:48 -0400, Corrupted Nutsack

Post by Corrupted Nutsack

Post by Vandar
Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

Fuck, no shit?

Incredible answer. Thanks for your input.

-sj

[Midex]

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"

Pure and simple. How does it feel to be an idiot?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6952102263921897950

[Sunny]

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"

Are you now implying that the Australian Govt. set it up ?
Are you just a raving idiot, or are you now claiming dual citizen status
now?

[Serge]

Post by Sunny

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"

Are you now implying that the Australian Govt. set it up ?
Are you just a raving idiot, or are you now claiming dual citizen status
now?

Ask Sunny about "dialup broadband" <chortle>

See if he agrees with his little luddite mate, Tex, who after being savaged
by Mark Addinall over his computer illiteracy was forced to blubber....
"Mea Culpa Maxima on dial-up broadband."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tex]

Post by Serge

Post by Sunny

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"

Are you now implying that the Australian Govt. set it up ?
Are you just a raving idiot, or are you now claiming dual citizen status
now?

Ask Sunny about "dialup broadband" <chortle>

Or, he could ask you:

"> You are aware you don't "dial" a broadband account,

Post by Serge
aren't you Sergey?

Certainly."
- Serge, may 4 2007

"> how you can "dial up" to a broadband account
Didn't say you could. "
- serge may 31 2007

Seems you didn't know about "dial up broadband" either Sergey :)

Post by Serge
See if he agrees with his little luddite mate, Tex

LOL, so you're admitting you were wrong about Sunny and I being the same
person. Guess you couldn't find any evidence after all :)

So Sergey, when will you apologise for lying?

Post by Serge
, who after being savaged
by Mark Addinall over his computer illiteracy was forced to blubber....
"Mea Culpa Maxima on dial-up broadband."
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, when will you apologise for your computer illteracy?

"> You are aware you don't "dial" a broadband account,

Post by Serge
aren't you Sergey?

Certainly."
- Serge, may 4 2007

"> how you can "dial up" to a broadband account
Didn't say you could. "
- serge may 31 2007

But at least you've admitted defeat by saying Sunny and I are different
people. Took you long enough. Hehehe

[Sunny]

Post by Serge

Post by Sunny

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"

Are you now implying that the Australian Govt. set it up ?
Are you just a raving idiot, or are you now claiming dual citizen status
now?

Ask Sunny about "dialup broadband" <chortle>

I still can't "dial up broadband" on my Telstra supplied cable modem SFB.
(If I could, you clown I would have left bigpond years ago)

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Sunny

Post by Serge

Post by Sunny

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of
collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"

Are you now implying that the Australian Govt. set it up ?
Are you just a raving idiot, or are you now claiming dual citizen status
now?

Ask Sunny about "dialup broadband" <chortle>

I still can't "dial up broadband" on my Telstra supplied cable modem SFB.
(If I could, you clown I would have left bigpond years ago)

Well, the idiot just admitted we are different people, despite one of
us being a 'sockpuppet'. Reminds me of when Jake can't remember which
country he's in.

[Vandar]

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"
Pure and simple. How does it feel to be an idiot?

You tell us. You're the one posting links to 2 hour videos.
Did you get your education from Google video as well?

[BDK]

In article <nR1pi.12694$***@news01.roc.ny>, ***@yahoo.com
says...

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"
Pure and simple. How does it feel to be an idiot?

You tell us. You're the one posting links to 2 hour videos.
Did you get your education from Google video as well?

I think Midol believes the longer a kookvid drones on, the more
convincing it is..

BDK

[War Office]

Post by BDK
says...

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"
Pure and simple. How does it feel to be an idiot?

You tell us. You're the one posting links to 2 hour videos.
Did you get your education from Google video as well?

I think Midol believes the longer a kookvid drones on, the more
convincing it is..

What a compilation of mainstream media footage is a kook video? So you
agree that mainstream media journalists are kooks?

Post by BDK
BDK

[BDK]

Post by War Office

Post by BDK
says...

Post by Vandar

Post by Midex

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse"http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The only people who put forward a pancake theory are conspiracists.
It's like saying that "there's no way a passenger car can go 1,286 MPH,
therefore Princess Diana was assassinated by ISI snipers."

"I tell you what, a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our
own government, is an idiot"
Pure and simple. How does it feel to be an idiot?

You tell us. You're the one posting links to 2 hour videos.
Did you get your education from Google video as well?

I think Midol believes the longer a kookvid drones on, the more
convincing it is..

What a compilation of mainstream media footage is a kook video? So you
agree that mainstream media journalists are kooks?

Post by BDK
BDK

When it's selectively edited to fit the kook's agenda? Of course.

BDK

[Tankfixer]

Post by Midex
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury

Hmm, Tresurary. Wall Street Journal.
Methinks his PhD is in economics perhaps ???

Post by Midex
under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm
The people in Usenet here who have defended the official story and
attacked 9/11 Truthers who are trying to get the evidence and ideas
and knowledge base out to the people to warn everyone are they
greatest criminals of humanity of our generation.
Yes thats you Tropi/Tex/Sunny of www.whackingday.com and all your
puppets and all your friends from Israel.
We WILL have you hunted down after the major crime network has been
overthrown and brought to trial. You Neo-Nazis will not escape the
claws of JUSTICE.

Do you realize just how wacked out you sound ?

[BDK]

Post by Midex
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm
The people in Usenet here who have defended the official story and
attacked 9/11 Truthers who are trying to get the evidence and ideas
and knowledge base out to the people to warn everyone are they
greatest criminals of humanity of our generation.
Yes thats you Tropi/Tex/Sunny of www.whackingday.com and all your
puppets and all your friends from Israel.

Let me guess, you think Jews and Motorcycles are conspiring to...well,
I'm sure you have dreamed something up. You always do.

Post by Midex
We WILL have you hunted down after the major crime network has been
overthrown and brought to trial. You Neo-Nazis will not escape the
claws of JUSTICE.

BWHAHAHAHA! I love it when you foam...

Is there a flute or piccolo playing in the background when you type the
above whopper??

[george]

Post by BDK

Post by Midex
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm
The people in Usenet here who have defended the official story and
attacked 9/11 Truthers who are trying to get the evidence and ideas
and knowledge base out to the people to warn everyone are they
greatest criminals of humanity of our generation.
Yes thats you Tropi/Tex/Sunny ofwww.whackingday.comand all your
puppets and all your friends from Israel.

Let me guess, you think Jews and Motorcycles are conspiring to...well,
I'm sure you have dreamed something up. You always do.

Post by Midex
We WILL have you hunted down after the major crime network has been
overthrown and brought to trial. You Neo-Nazis will not escape the
claws of JUSTICE.

BWHAHAHAHA! I love it when you foam...

I doubt that we have much to fear from this poster or any of his/hers/
its ilk.

Post by BDK
Is there a flute or piccolo playing in the background when you type the
above whopper??

He plays the one stringed occarina

[t***@yahoo.com]

Post by Midex
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm
The people in Usenet here who have defended the official story and
attacked 9/11 Truthers who are trying to get the evidence and ideas
and knowledge base out to the people to warn everyone are they
greatest criminals of humanity of our generation.
Yes thats you Tropi/Tex/Sunny ofwww.whackingday.comand all your
puppets and all your friends from Israel.
We WILL have you hunted down after the major crime network has been
overthrown and brought to trial. You Neo-Nazis will not escape the
claws of JUSTICE.

asama bin laden is responsible for trades center. the jews provoked
him. the jews have seeded this silly conspiracy theroy to discredit
people who are against jews

[Tankfixer]

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

[Midex]

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org

There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

Post by Tankfixer
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

No there isn't.

They even have one guy who lists himself as "overeducated carpenter".
They list a bunch of people who call themselves "software engineers".
That's my field.

[War Office]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

No there isn't.
They even have one guy who lists himself as "overeducated carpenter".
They list a bunch of people who call themselves "software engineers".
That's my field.

There are at least dozen structural engineers there, which is a field
of civil engineering. And a dozen architects.

The list is growing rapidly.

[Vandar]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

No there isn't.
They even have one guy who lists himself as "overeducated carpenter".
They list a bunch of people who call themselves "software engineers".
That's my field.

There are at least dozen structural engineers there, which is a field
of civil engineering. And a dozen architects.
The list is growing rapidly.

HA! Now it's a dozen structural engineers and a dozen architects?

What happened to "There is a list of 200 structural engineers and
architects"? Hmmmmmm?

[BDK]

In article <8Zqpi.12796$***@news01.roc.ny>, ***@yahoo.com
says...

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

No there isn't.
They even have one guy who lists himself as "overeducated carpenter".
They list a bunch of people who call themselves "software engineers".
That's my field.

There are at least dozen structural engineers there, which is a field
of civil engineering. And a dozen architects.
The list is growing rapidly.

HA! Now it's a dozen structural engineers and a dozen architects?
What happened to "There is a list of 200 structural engineers and
architects"? Hmmmmmm?

He recounted, he forgot to take off his shoes the first time, and just
"Guesstimated" 200.

It's totally understandable, considering his condition.

BDK

[animal05]

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

No there isn't.
They even have one guy who lists himself as "overeducated carpenter".
They list a bunch of people who call themselves "software engineers".
That's my field.

There are at least dozen structural engineers there, which is a field
of civil engineering. And a dozen architects.
The list is growing rapidly.

HA! Now it's a dozen structural engineers and a dozen architects?
What happened to "There is a list of 200 structural engineers and
architects"? Hmmmmmm?

There are approximately 91,000 licensed architects in the United States
according to the AIA. The truthers, after 6 years, has managed to find
24 clueless ones. Those 24 are as significant as a pimple on a gnats ass

[Sunny]

Post by War Office

Post by Midex
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

There are at least dozen structural engineers there, which is a field
of civil engineering. And a dozen architects.

Make up your "mind" wanker Jake.

[Tankfixer]

Post by War Office

Post by Vandar

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

No there isn't.
They even have one guy who lists himself as "overeducated carpenter".
They list a bunch of people who call themselves "software engineers".
That's my field.

There are at least dozen structural engineers there, which is a field
of civil engineering. And a dozen architects.

Umm, can you make up your mind please ?
First you say 200 now you say at least a dozen.

I take it math wasn't your best subject ...

Post by War Office
The list is growing rapidly.

Yes, but do the people listed know you are using thier names ?

[Tankfixer]

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org
There is a list of 200 structural engineers and architects who have
published their names and qualifications and concluded that the three
WTC towers came down in controlled demolition - with explosives.

Yes, you have trotted out that list before.
The question is, do they know you are using their names in support of
your crackpot theories ?

Should someone ask them perhaps ?

[Midex]

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org

Since you don't have any relevant qualifications this debate is out of
your jurisdiction. To enter into debate with us on this matter just
proves you are ignorant or a liar.

Give me your full name and qualifications if relevant.

Post by Tankfixer
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

[Tankfixer]

Post by War Office

Post by Tankfixer

discredit> people who are against jews

Like they need any help being discredited...

www.ae911truth.org

Crackpot website.
No credibility.
Zip.

Post by War Office
Since you don't have any relevant qualifications this debate is out of
your jurisdiction. To enter into debate with us on this matter just
proves you are ignorant or a liar.

One usually takes facts and puts a theory together.
You, on the other hand take the theory and then tries to mold the facts
to fit no matter how much you must twist them to fit the predetermined
result.
Not very scientific now is that ?
Certainly not something a true engineer would attempt.

Post by War Office
Give me your full name and qualifications if relevant.

Above you claimed I have not the qualifications to have an opinion on
the matter.
So why should you need my name and so forth if you have already decided?

[Midex]

Post by t***@yahoo.com

Post by Midex
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
under Ronald Reagan. "Father of Reaganomics." Former Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm
The people in Usenet here who have defended the official story and
attacked 9/11 Truthers who are trying to get the evidence and ideas
and knowledge base out to the people to warn everyone are they
greatest criminals of humanity of our generation.
Yes thats you Tropi/Tex/Sunny ofwww.whackingday.comandall your
puppets and all your friends from Israel.
We WILL have you hunted down after the major crime network has been
overthrown and brought to trial. You Neo-Nazis will not escape the
claws of JUSTICE.

asama bin laden is responsible for trades center. the jews provoked
him. the jews have seeded this silly conspiracy theroy to discredit
people who are against jews

you're an idiot.
www.ae911truth.org

Go do the research.