|
Sharky2055 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yzerman123456 Those young twerps don't have facts. Dylan's even admitted his movies, "aren't backed 100% by facts", "make dubious claims" and have "many inaccuracies".
Yzerman123456 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
this is messed upyoung people arguing against old peoplebut citing facts
PsychoSpammer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Ron Paul? What do you expect anyone that far into office to say.It doesn't tell what he really thinks
spudzoutawadena (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
psycho -is all over it! to BAD for you CLONE RANGER !haha LOL
TeIeCumber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
What do you think of the truthers hero Ron Paul basically telling the truth movement to go **** themselves? LMFAO Ron Paul comments regarding 9-11 deniers:Quote: I have abandoned those viewpoints. I don't endorse anything they say. I don't endorse what they say watch?v=t-lxZThe CT kids are clinging to RP like the last poor souls to go down with the Titanic
TeIeCumber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable." - D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU LOLTwoofers, not a brain amongst them
TeIeCumber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Steven Jones has many glaring inconsistencies in his claims For example, as evidence of thermite/thermate use, he says...1 The towers fell at free-fall speed. But something like this would require EXPLOSIVES (not an incendiary) to be placed on each floor.2 Steel columns were ejected horizontally hundreds of feet. Again, an incendiary like thermite would not do this.3.The pulverization of concrete. Of course, even explosives wouldn't do this, but an incendiary CERTAINLY wouldn't do it.
TeIeCumber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
CTV (.) ca of Canada cited a three-year study of 200 technical experts which refuted the demolition claims of Dr. Jones. you have kept up with Dr Thermite Jones, his first paper was all about how thermite destroyed the tower, his paper has changed as he learns how CD is really done, now he added RDX to his list of how the explosives were set in the WTC. All of this is presented without facts and evidence, just talk and poor research
TeIeCumber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the K.E. also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer, say twice as long or more, than the duration of a free fall.."Journal of Engineering Mechanics Vol133#3Contact the editorial board, if you have something to complain.But be informed, they are trained professionals in the field of engineering. You WILL actually need to back up your claims.
PsychoSpammer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
RETARD is correct, NIST explains "collapse innitiation"Trouble is they didnt prove it.Their own data destroys the theory, which lives and dies on steel temperatures.Did Nist proceed to Model the entire collapse of two scrapers in the worst Terrorist Attack in US History??NOPE. |
