I mean, I am in the middle with all of this because I don’t know. Would you consider them finding the passport from one of the hijackers in the rubble suspect? If the jet fuel from the plane was hot enough to melt the steel in the building, then surely it would’ve got that passport correct? Or was that just a one in a trillion chance it made it through all that destruction to be found by our top men?

The passport was on a treadmill.

Goodness

Where do you figure that passport was in relation to the fuel source at the time of impact?  Think it just might have exited the structure along with a bunch of the rest of the airplane that they spent the next decade cleaning up over several city blocks?

what do you see in these photos?

I was at a christmas party with other gun enthusiasts this past weekend.

I instantly regretted asking someone if they were a member of ar15.com

This place has largely become a joke.

Seriously... 9/11 trooferism?

Saying that the WTC collapsed in on its own footprint is also untruthful.

Uh..911 retardation is a bannable offence here. Might want to be careful with that stuff. Not surprising Qtards are 911.truthers.  I hope.it gets you guys yanked. No doubt you guys exist to make the Right look idiotic

he didn't win last time.

In on the "17"th page.

if you're showing an interest in chess, your TDS/QDS friends won't want to play with you anymore.  

unless it's clown chess, where trump is a rino but mccarthy isn't.  that's okay.

kek

Who is in the White House ?

It used to be, anyways.

the one who was intalled there, instead of the one the people voted for.

does it never sink in that a lot of your arguments are just variations on an appeal to authority?  what kind of patriot does that make?

If you think I’m supporting 9/11 trutherism with those posts perhaps you should actually read/watch them.

Serious question. Is your caps broken? Or did Q make you remove it.

The new Arfcom. Where Moby's are welcome to make the Right look like insane buffoons.

we would need a decent study to determine that.  i'll take your inability/unwillingness to debate what I presented as an admission of the NIST study to be bogus.  

we also need a public that is fully informed of the events on that day, without so much kept classified from us.  

maybe if oliver stone did a movie about 9/11 we could question the establishment's narrative.  

let's just talk about JFK instead.  who's first?

Holy shit is your entire schtick just to constantly deflect with other asinine retardeation?

NO.  WE HAD A MEETING AND HE GAVE AMBIGUOUS ORDERS.

now i'm starting to think you mean straphanger as a double entendre.  BOYS BUTTS SHOULD BE EXIT ONLY.

your NIST study is redardeated.  and so is your NIST study's mom.

You're missing out.

Ayup.

Trumpers, Q, and 9/11 truthers all seem to fit well together somehow, it's very poetic.

Secret POTUS is in the secret Whitehouse, with the servers from Germany and all those secret indictments waiting to be handed out.

That venn diagram is a single circle.

How you even figured out how to make an account here is beyond me.

I thought 9/11 conspiracy’s were persona non grata here?

people who are sick of BS 24/7 arguing with people who are so heavily invested in the establishment that they'll defend it to their last breath.

how about israel's 'intelligence failure' that allowed a bunch of tard palis to utterly get the drop on them?  ooh then we could start following the money.

The Moon landing will be mentioned soon (if it hasn't already).

sanitized for your protection.  

>>  “From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions,” said Walter.

The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger “thermal movements” at a critical base plate support.

Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on “science and engineering” and accept that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a plausible cause.

For expediency and because it was not hit by a plane, the study looked only at WTC 7 not the other two but AE911T has long claimed all three were subject to something beyond heat induced failure.

“The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were,” says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study.

“Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.”

Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building.

The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning.

The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure.

“We don’t even know if the steel was fireproofed,” says Korol.

The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a XXXXXXXXXXXXX and says its only interest is in ensuring that there’s no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault.

UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, principal investigator, his research assistants, Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, found that the design standard of the building was not exceeded by the fire and that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX caused the structural steel to fail.

“Fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building,” the report states. “Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.”

The NIST report held that lateral support beams buckled because of thermal expansion from the fire and because they had “nowhere to go” and thus deformed and weakened the structural integrity. Other failures were triggered when joists and beams “walked off” their connections, NIST found.

It was also the first NIST finding of a highrise collapse from thermal deformation caused by fire which the 125-page Alaska report disputes.

It presents arguments showing it was a simultaneous global failure not a localized failure causing a domino effect.

Hulsey et al argue that the collapse was straight down in a pancake fashion with about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for free fall acceleration.

“In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration,” the report states.

The study team undertook extensive computer and physical modelling, paying particular attention to the area around Column 79 which had been identified as the critical juncture of failure.

Their conclusion is that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building and were not subjected to heat above floor 30 because there were no fires there.

Even if they did, they would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures and the team was unable to find any other plausible cause for the progressive sequence of failures.

>>

So what brought down WTC 1, 2, and 7?

following the money is a conspiracy theory.

But Q isn't real.

or Space Aliens... or Not?

So money took down WTC 1 and 2 and not the airplanes? Did money take down WTC 7?

Is there money in the room with you, right now?

alright, fine.  i'll admit it-

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

the WTC was..

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Attached File

i swear to God i once had to tell a chick 'NO thank you'.

Still waiting on an answer into how a conclusion was reached before the modeling was complete.

Because the people who funded the study paid for a specific result?

Pretty sure MK Ultra was involved.

I thought you had to be 18 to have an account here.

He was all too happy to give it to them four years ahead of the release of his final report.

But still you remain, posting furiously, with that massive post count...