New April 2009 Shocking Chemistry Report

Haroki · May 3, 2009

Quote from DT-waw:

hey haroki,
can you explain one little thing to us:

why these controlled demolition companies prepare all their building demolitions in great detail, effort and cost, when the EXACT same effect can be achieved by placing some random, small fires here and there, as it was the case on 9/11?

Another ignorant retard chimes in.

Why don't you tell us why not.

I'll be waiting....

drjekyllus · May 3, 2009

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Certain things in life require sophisticated thinking and interpretations of events (reading between the lines). Not everyone is capable of advanced thought.

If advanced thought is required then I guess that rules you out. After all, when I called the swine flu a fraud you said I had "profound ignorance". Guess what, swine flu is still a fraud so I guess it is you who has no idea what they are talking about. You are a sheep and believes everything the media tells you.

DT-waw · May 4, 2009

Quote from Haroki:

Another ignorant retard chimes in.

Why don't you tell us why not.

I'll be waiting....

jesus, you are really beyond any help.

why not???
because some small fire does not demolish any buildings in the 9/11 fashion (straight down), does not pulverize 400,000 tons of concrete in about 10 seconds.

thats why demolition companies have to place explosive materials in the building and trigger them in the right time for the straight (not sideways) collapse.

but that's waaaay too hard for you to understand.

Haroki · May 4, 2009

Quote from DT-waw:

because some small fire does not demolish any buildings in the 9/11 fashion (straight down), does not pulverize 400,000 tons of concrete in about 10 seconds.

thats why demolition companies have to place explosive materials in the building and trigger them in the right time for the straight (not sideways) collapse.

Ahhh, a strawman argument.

How trollish of you.

If fires don't compromise buildings, why is fire insulation a requirement of steel framed buildings?

C'mon now, give facts for an answer, not arguments from incredulity. You'll be the first.

IShopAtPublix · May 4, 2009

Quote from Haroki:

Ahhh, a strawman argument.

How trollish of you.

If fires don't compromise buildings, why is fire insulation a requirement of steel framed buildings?

C'mon now, give facts for an answer, not arguments from incredulity. You'll be the first.

Fire proofing is a requirement because fires can severely damage a building without bringing it down(I am not even going to go into loss of life/damage to property discussion). Since the point of buildings is to be occupied, having a severely gutted but standing building is of no use. You are either a hopeless troll or were dropped on your head as a child. You are incapable of making the simplest of inferences or conclusions.

WaveStrider · May 4, 2009

I believe the 2nd WTC tower hit fell first because it's structure was compromised at a lower level than the 1st, making the load-bearing strain greater. That the structure pancaked down might not be so hard to believe given the support structure was external.

As for why WTC7 fell without being hit, or why it fell straight down without tilting and damaging the adjacent buildings, that one is harder to explain.

Haroki · May 4, 2009

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Fire proofing is a requirement because fires can severely damage a building without bringing it down(I am not even going to go into loss of life/damage to property discussion). Since the point of buildings is to be occupied, having a severely gutted but standing building is of no use.

How does protecting the steel frame keep a building from being gutted?

It does NOTHING to prevent a fire from spreading. It only keeps the STEEL from failing.

And a local failure can lead to a total collapse, like we saw on 9/11.

You just don't believe it due to personal incredulity.

Too bad for you that dozens of papers have been published that agree with the impact/fire/global collapse scenario. And none that can dispute them.

AMT4SWA · May 19, 2009

Quote from WaveStrider:

As for why WTC7 fell without being hit, or why it fell straight down without tilting and damaging the adjacent buildings, that one is harder to explain.

"O REALLY!!!"

ROTFLMAO!!!!

:eek:

BTW, here is a biden clip........... http://www.infowars.com/wearechange-la-questions-vp-biden-on-911-and-nano-thermite/

AMT4SWA · May 19, 2009

Quote from Haroki:

How does protecting the steel frame keep a building from being gutted?

It does NOTHING to prevent a fire from spreading. It only keeps the STEEL from failing.

And a local failure can lead to a total collapse, like we saw on 9/11.

You just don't believe it due to personal incredulity.

Too bad for you that dozens of papers have been published that agree with the impact/fire/global collapse scenario. And none that can dispute them.

Again......nothing you have EVER MENTIONED handles the FACTS!!!!!!!!!!

NANO-THERMITE in ALL WTC buildings dust and rubble!!!!!

CASE CLOSED..........INSIDE JOB!!!!!!! :eek:

AMT4SWA · May 19, 2009

Quote from Haroki:

Ahhh, a strawman argument.

How trollish of you.

If fires don't compromise buildings, why is fire insulation a requirement of steel framed buildings?

C'mon now, give facts for an answer, not arguments from incredulity. You'll be the first.

Your still stuck on these type "yahoo board" arguments......do your proper reasearch!!!

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

BTW, look who also wants 9/11 TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/41-us-c...ns-challenge-the-official-account-of-911.html