mboost-dp1
911 Hoax
Fjolle (451) skrev:Jeg må igen henvise dig til NIST rapporten, hvor det er fint forklaret hvorfor netop denne bygning kollapsede pga. brand.
Jeg må igen sige til dig at de tager fejl, fordi ildebrand ikke kan skabe de temperaturer der kræves.
Jeg må igen henvise dig til disse bygninger som brandte langt længere tid og mere omfattende uden at kollapse. Madrid var ikke engang bygget færdig...
Der er et uafhængigt firma som prøvede at efterligne NIST's resultater. De kom frem til at Builing 7 ikke kunne kollapse. Du er sikkert ikke intereseret i disse data.
Deres resultater kræver en temperatur på 300-600 grader, Hvilket altid sker i brande. Hvorfor mener du at de tager fejl?
De andre bygninger var ikke bygget ligesom bygning 7, så jeg synes at vi skal lade være med at sammenligne æbler og bananer.
Har du et link til det firmas undersøgelse?
De andre bygninger var ikke bygget ligesom bygning 7, så jeg synes at vi skal lade være med at sammenligne æbler og bananer.
Har du et link til det firmas undersøgelse?
#452
Opgiv ham, hver evig eneste gang vi kommer med noget dokumentation, nægter han at tro på det fordi han selv er specialuddannet i bygnings brande og sammenstyrtinger, vi er jo idioter der ikke kan grundlæggende fysik.
Conar er ikke andet end Terras ubegavede tvilling.
Opgiv ham, hver evig eneste gang vi kommer med noget dokumentation, nægter han at tro på det fordi han selv er specialuddannet i bygnings brande og sammenstyrtinger, vi er jo idioter der ikke kan grundlæggende fysik.
Conar er ikke andet end Terras ubegavede tvilling.
Conar (454) skrev:Firmaet hedder Underwriter laboratories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laborato...
Jeg kan ikke finde nogen rapport, du må gerne komme med et direkte link :)
Desuden er det lidt svært for dem at kunne have brugt 1.5 år på det, så det ingengang er et år siden NIST rapporten kom...
Fjolle (457) skrev:Conar (454) skrev:Firmaet hedder Underwriter laboratories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laborato...
Jeg kan ikke finde nogen rapport, du må gerne komme med et direkte link :)
Desuden er det lidt svært for dem at kunne have brugt 1.5 år på det, så det ingengang er et år siden NIST rapporten kom...
Det var en fejl jeg skrev 1.5 år:)
Her er lidt mere info...
Underwriters Laboratories, the company which certified the steel which was used in the construction of the World Trade Center twin towers. UL was also contracted by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to conduct tests of floor model assemblies of the WTC during their investigation on the trade center collapses. Kevin Ryan blew the whistle in November of 2004 with his letter to the director of the NIST investigation, Frank Gayle, raising questions about the outcome of the findings of the investigation. Kevin was subsequently fired in retaliation
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired
Lab Director Fired for Questioning
Official 9/11 Story - Associated Press
"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
Dear friends,
More important news is coming out on the 9/11 cover-up. Associated Press (AP) reports that a lab director who became a 9/11 whistleblower recently lost his job for questioning the official story of the World Trade Center collapse. The link to the AP article as published in Fort Wayne, Indiana's News-Sentinel is given below. This is followed by the link and full text for a more thorough article on Ryan's firing in the South Bend Tribune. As is too often the case with anything contradicting the official 9/11 story, an Internet news search reveals that no major papers carried this most important story.
For more eye-opening information on the major cover-up surrounding 9/11, see our summary of reliable, easily verifiable facts at www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up10pg Let us be thankful for the many brave whistleblowers who have put the good of the nation ahead of job security and reputation. May each of us have the courage to speak and live our truth in our daily lives. Thanks for caring, and please help to build the critical mass needed to break this story out by spreading the word.
With best wishes,
Fred
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/loc...
(also reported in Indianapolis Star, but not now available on their website)
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/11/22...
(payment of $1.95 required)
Area man stirs debate on WTC collapse
South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe
By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN
Tribune Staff Writer
SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.
Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.
On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- the agency probing the collapse -- challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."
Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing -- that the samples we certified met all requirements."
UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is conducting a $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. The agency expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.
Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.
"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home.
But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.
Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.
The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.
Wrangling on the Web
Ryan's statements have generated interest on many Web sites, including some advocating sharp scrutiny of the federal government's WTC probe.
Ryan copied his e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor," and to Catherine Austin Fitts, a board member of 911Truth.org -- a Web site organized by citizens who believe the government is covering up the true cause of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
One day later, Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties.
An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.
The letter was published Nov. 11 on the Web site
septembereleventh.org, site of the 9/11 Visibility Project. On Tuesday, organizers of the 911Truth.org Web site noted Ryan had been fired.
In his letter, Ryan appeared confident in his statements about the WTC's fire protection levels.
"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth," he told the institute's Gayle. "Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."
UL moved immediately to discredit Ryan.
The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."
The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."
"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."
Organizers of 911Truth.org came to Ryan's defense Thursday, although they couldn't persuade him to speak publicly.
"He just saw too many contradictions, and it set off his sense of what was the right thing to do," said David Kubiak, 911Truth.org's executive director. "It's unfortunate for the country, and it's particularly tragic for him, but inspiring as hell."
"The way things are working in the country right now," Kubiak added, "it's only going to be citizens like this who take their professional knowledge and sense of personal integrity, and put it ahead of the strange status quo, that we will see truth and justice out of the system."
Staff writer John Dobberstein
Lab Director Fired for Questioning
Official 9/11 Story - Associated Press
"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
Dear friends,
More important news is coming out on the 9/11 cover-up. Associated Press (AP) reports that a lab director who became a 9/11 whistleblower recently lost his job for questioning the official story of the World Trade Center collapse. The link to the AP article as published in Fort Wayne, Indiana's News-Sentinel is given below. This is followed by the link and full text for a more thorough article on Ryan's firing in the South Bend Tribune. As is too often the case with anything contradicting the official 9/11 story, an Internet news search reveals that no major papers carried this most important story.
For more eye-opening information on the major cover-up surrounding 9/11, see our summary of reliable, easily verifiable facts at www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up10pg Let us be thankful for the many brave whistleblowers who have put the good of the nation ahead of job security and reputation. May each of us have the courage to speak and live our truth in our daily lives. Thanks for caring, and please help to build the critical mass needed to break this story out by spreading the word.
With best wishes,
Fred
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/loc...
(also reported in Indianapolis Star, but not now available on their website)
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/11/22...
(payment of $1.95 required)
Area man stirs debate on WTC collapse
South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe
By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN
Tribune Staff Writer
SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.
Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.
On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- the agency probing the collapse -- challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."
Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing -- that the samples we certified met all requirements."
UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is conducting a $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. The agency expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.
Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.
"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home.
But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.
Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.
The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.
Wrangling on the Web
Ryan's statements have generated interest on many Web sites, including some advocating sharp scrutiny of the federal government's WTC probe.
Ryan copied his e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor," and to Catherine Austin Fitts, a board member of 911Truth.org -- a Web site organized by citizens who believe the government is covering up the true cause of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
One day later, Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties.
An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.
The letter was published Nov. 11 on the Web site
septembereleventh.org, site of the 9/11 Visibility Project. On Tuesday, organizers of the 911Truth.org Web site noted Ryan had been fired.
In his letter, Ryan appeared confident in his statements about the WTC's fire protection levels.
"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth," he told the institute's Gayle. "Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."
UL moved immediately to discredit Ryan.
The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."
The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."
"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."
Organizers of 911Truth.org came to Ryan's defense Thursday, although they couldn't persuade him to speak publicly.
"He just saw too many contradictions, and it set off his sense of what was the right thing to do," said David Kubiak, 911Truth.org's executive director. "It's unfortunate for the country, and it's particularly tragic for him, but inspiring as hell."
"The way things are working in the country right now," Kubiak added, "it's only going to be citizens like this who take their professional knowledge and sense of personal integrity, and put it ahead of the strange status quo, that we will see truth and justice out of the system."
Staff writer John Dobberstein
Ja. Et brev. Ingen undersøgelse... Pointe?
Og hvis du har lyst til at høre en eksperts mening, så er der en her fra chefen for Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat David Scott
Og hvis du har lyst til at høre en eksperts mening, så er der en her fra chefen for Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat David Scott
http://www.ctbuh.org/AboutCTBUH/ChairmansPage/ChairmansSep08/tabid/696/language/en-GB/Default.aspx skrev:While more than 99.9% of the US tall building community believes that the Conspiracy Theory is complete garbage, NIST has been compelled to spend considerable effort disproving the theory; partly because the engineering community has not spoken out against the theory as strongly as we could. . From my perspective there is not one aspect of the failure of WTC1, 2, 5, 6 or 7 that cannot be explained by engineering phenomenon.
Jeg ved hvad der i virkeligheden skete. Amerikanerne glemte at afgive bestilling:
http://failblog.org/2009/02/06/freedom-fail/
http://failblog.org/2009/02/06/freedom-fail/
Conar (464) skrev:Underwrite Labs's kom frem til resultater som ikke passede med NIST raporten. Da Kevin Ryan siger dette i et brev, bliver han fyret.
Nej. Det gjorde de ikke. Kevin Ryan arbejde ingengang med den afdeling der havde med stål at gøre.
Og hvis du har set videoen siger de jo også at NIST rettede deres teori efter hans brev.
Noget af kernen var intakt. Det er jo ikke sådan at trappen fylder det hele...
Jeg vil igen spørge dig om hvorfor du ikke mener at wtc7 kan kollapse. Dit bevis var en ikke eksisterende rapport som en mand der ikke arbejder med brand-beskyttelse havde skrevet om de andre tårne?
Jeg vil igen spørge dig om hvorfor du ikke mener at wtc7 kan kollapse. Dit bevis var en ikke eksisterende rapport som en mand der ikke arbejder med brand-beskyttelse havde skrevet om de andre tårne?
NIST simulationen ser bare helt uvirkelig ud, det indvendige at WTC 7 falder sammen, mens skallen står næsten stille, og derefter falder hele bygningen sammen. Ikke noget med at den falder lidt tid siden, nej lodret ned.Fjolle (474) skrev:Jeg vil igen spørge dig om hvorfor du ikke mener at wtc7 kan kollapse. Dit bevis var en ikke eksisterende rapport som en mand der ikke arbejder med brand-beskyttelse havde skrevet om de andre tårne?
De siger noget bærende stål blev smeltet væk på 13. sal startede kollapset (indevendigt!) ... stål forsvinder ikke bare lige, kun i Star Trek med phazer guns :)
... eller sprængstof
NIST har helt udelukket sprængstof i alle deres simulationer
måske havde teoristerne plantet noget sprængstof der.
Nej. Du har tydeligvis ikke læst den.
At den ser uvirkelig ud for dig kan jeg ikke rigtig gøre noget ved, andet end at sige at det gør den ikke for dem der nok har den største ekspertise på området overhovedet (se post #462)
Der var ikke noget stål der fordampede eller smeltede væk. Det var en bjælke der blev udvidet pga varmen (tænk på vores kære togskinner om sommeren, bare 400 grader varmere...) og skubbede en anden bjælke væk. Det resulterede så i at der var en bærende sølje der ikke havde nogen støtte og dermed kollapsede.
Mth. sprængstof har NIST jo prøvet at simulere hvad en eksplotion der ville betyde, og det ville være at alle ruderne omkring var sprunget ud (det blev de ikke ifølge videoerne) og at der ville være et brag på 140 dB i en afstand af 1 km fra huset, hvilket der heller ikke var.
At den ser uvirkelig ud for dig kan jeg ikke rigtig gøre noget ved, andet end at sige at det gør den ikke for dem der nok har den største ekspertise på området overhovedet (se post #462)
Der var ikke noget stål der fordampede eller smeltede væk. Det var en bjælke der blev udvidet pga varmen (tænk på vores kære togskinner om sommeren, bare 400 grader varmere...) og skubbede en anden bjælke væk. Det resulterede så i at der var en bærende sølje der ikke havde nogen støtte og dermed kollapsede.
Mth. sprængstof har NIST jo prøvet at simulere hvad en eksplotion der ville betyde, og det ville være at alle ruderne omkring var sprunget ud (det blev de ikke ifølge videoerne) og at der ville være et brag på 140 dB i en afstand af 1 km fra huset, hvilket der heller ikke var.
NIST og bygning 7:
NIST, 21. august 2008
[url=
NIST finally admits freefall speed - 1[/url]
[url= finally admits freefall speed - 2[/url]
[url= finally admits freefall speed - 3[/url]
NIST, 21. august 2008
[url=
NIST finally admits freefall speed - 1[/url]
[url= finally admits freefall speed - 2[/url]
[url= finally admits freefall speed - 3[/url]
#481
Ja, det er ret sjovt at han brokker sig over næsten 6 sek. som han mener NIST har lagt til tiden det tager den at falde, når det er de næsten 6 sek. har penthouset falder og til resten af bygningen begynder at falde.
Conar du har mere end en gang fået dette at vide, er du så interlektuel uærlig at du konsekvent ignorer ting der ikke passer ind i dit billede af at det var en konspiration?
PS.: Du får lige en rating af sjov, fordi det er ret komisk at du endnu engang hopper i med begge fødder.
Ja, det er ret sjovt at han brokker sig over næsten 6 sek. som han mener NIST har lagt til tiden det tager den at falde, når det er de næsten 6 sek. har penthouset falder og til resten af bygningen begynder at falde.
Conar du har mere end en gang fået dette at vide, er du så interlektuel uærlig at du konsekvent ignorer ting der ikke passer ind i dit billede af at det var en konspiration?
PS.: Du får lige en rating af sjov, fordi det er ret komisk at du endnu engang hopper i med begge fødder.
Fuck hvor er i godtroende.
Som nævnt tidligere, så er NIST's problem da at de her skulle forklare hvordan det kunne ske. I stedet for at se på om det kunne ske.
Det er da så klart fra det 3 videoer fra #480 at de har et forklarings problem. Hold det sammen med simulationerne på : http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_vi... , der ikke ligner hvad der egentlig skete og hvor er enden.
De har da helt klat tweeket og tweeket deres simulation for at ramme det der ligner bedst, men aligevel har det ikke været muligt og når de så skal forklare det så kan de ikke.
Konklutionen på deres raport, burde være en anden, end den de kom frem til.
Som nævnt tidligere, så er NIST's problem da at de her skulle forklare hvordan det kunne ske. I stedet for at se på om det kunne ske.
Det er da så klart fra det 3 videoer fra #480 at de har et forklarings problem. Hold det sammen med simulationerne på : http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_vi... , der ikke ligner hvad der egentlig skete og hvor er enden.
De har da helt klat tweeket og tweeket deres simulation for at ramme det der ligner bedst, men aligevel har det ikke været muligt og når de så skal forklare det så kan de ikke.
Konklutionen på deres raport, burde være en anden, end den de kom frem til.
Fjolle (484) skrev:Hehe. Hvis du vidste noget som helst om computer simuleringer ville du nok vide at det er sådan man gør...
Woow... Hvor de du klog og hvor er jeg dum.
Ja man tweeker og tweeker men, hvis man ikke kan ramme det ønskede resultat, så må man også konkludere, der er noget galt, hvilket de ikke har gjort.
Hvad med Larry Silverstein udtalerser om at pull it :
Unset hvad så er der noget der ikke hænger sammen..
Mads33 (485) skrev:Ja man tweeker og tweeker men, hvis man ikke kan ramme det ønskede resultat, så må man også konkludere, der er noget galt, hvilket de ikke har gjort.
Hvad er det præcis der ikke ligner?
Er det den måde som bygningen falder sammen i den ene side efterfulgt af resten af bygningen, præcist som optagelserne fra dagen viser? Du ved de første sekunder af dens fald, som de fleste konspiration løgnere ikke viser dig, fordi det modbeviser deres påstande om fritfald?
Mads33 (485) skrev:Hvad med Larry Silverstein udtalerser om at pull it :
Hvad med den?
Virker det ikke fornuftigt at trække brændfolkene ud og stoppe med at bekæmpe brænden, inden der er flere der dør? Det er hvad "pull it" betyder, det er kun hos konspirations tåber "pull it" betyder spring bygningen.
[quote=Mads33 (485)]Unset hvad så er der noget der ikke hænger sammen..
En 20'er på det er din viden der ikke hænger sammen.
Fjolle (486) skrev:Hehe.. Det er brandmands-sprog for at trække sig tilbage fra huset og lade være med at bekæmpe branden :)
+ m_abs
Han her jo ikke noget tøj på ! - Suckers.
Det er meget meget hemligt det her. Lad os råbe heeeelt vildt højt, og sige på TV at vi sprænger huset i luften, så vi er sikre på at hele verden høre det.
Hvis vi bruger koden Pull the building, er der ingen der opdager noget.
Kan i virkelig ikke se hvor hul i hovedet det er at det skulle betyde sprængning af bygningen?
Hvis vi bruger koden Pull the building, er der ingen der opdager noget.
Kan i virkelig ikke se hvor hul i hovedet det er at det skulle betyde sprængning af bygningen?
Fjolle (490) skrev:
Uh?
Hvis du ikke tror på mig kan du jo spørge enhver anden brandmand...
Kan spørge dem her?
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
:)
m_abs (482) skrev:
Conar du har mere end en gang fået dette at vide, er du så interlektuel uærlig at du konsekvent ignorer ting der ikke passer ind i dit billede af at det var en konspiration?
PS.: Du får lige en rating af sjov, fordi det er ret komisk at du endnu engang hopper i med begge fødder.
Jeg skrev altså ikke #480.
Og det staves intellektuel.
NIST kan lukke munden på www.ae911truth.org og de andre truth sites, hvis de giver computer simulationen til uafhængige sikkerheds testing firmaer som feks Underwrite Laboratories...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laborato...
Men det nægter de.
De gav ellers opgaven til Underwriter Laboratories for at teste "pandekage" modellen, man da Underwriter Laboratories ikke kunne få bygningerne til at kollapse, så fyrede de Underwriter Laboratories, og lavede deres egen computer model selv. haha. det stinker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laborato...
Men det nægter de.
De gav ellers opgaven til Underwriter Laboratories for at teste "pandekage" modellen, man da Underwriter Laboratories ikke kunne få bygningerne til at kollapse, så fyrede de Underwriter Laboratories, og lavede deres egen computer model selv. haha. det stinker.
NIST nægter at mødes med www.ae911truth.org som man kan læse på forsiden. Come on, hvad er de bange for?
Måske er de bange for at blive owned som på dette universitet...
så de holder nok ikke flere "møder" i fremtiden :)
Måske er de bange for at blive owned som på dette universitet...
så de holder nok ikke flere "møder" i fremtiden :)
Conar (495) skrev:NIST nægter at mødes med www.ae911truth.org som man kan læse på forsiden. Come on, hvad er de bange for?
At blive fyret fordi de spiller skatteydernes penge?
Round and round we go.
angående firefigthersfor911truth, så se her (jeg har linket til den side 2 gange, og du har åbenbart ikke læst den endnu.
Angående simuleringerne. Har noget af dem spurgt NIST om dem, eller sidder de bare og venter på at de på magisk vis kommer med posten? Jeg kan ikke se at de har sendt en FOIA request på dem, men har set en anden der gjorde det, og *SUPRISE!* fik dem...
Dokumentation tak?
Og vi var da lige blevet enige om at stål ikke smeltede ved wtc... Så det er ae911truth der lyver...
angående firefigthersfor911truth, så se her (jeg har linket til den side 2 gange, og du har åbenbart ikke læst den endnu.
Angående simuleringerne. Har noget af dem spurgt NIST om dem, eller sidder de bare og venter på at de på magisk vis kommer med posten? Jeg kan ikke se at de har sendt en FOIA request på dem, men har set en anden der gjorde det, og *SUPRISE!* fik dem...
Conar (493) skrev:De gav ellers opgaven til Underwriter Laboratories for at teste "pandekage" modellen, man da Underwriter Laboratories ikke kunne få bygningerne til at kollapse, så fyrede de Underwriter Laboratories, og lavede deres egen computer model selv. haha. det stinker.
Dokumentation tak?
Og vi var da lige blevet enige om at stål ikke smeltede ved wtc... Så det er ae911truth der lyver...
Dokumentation for at de skrottede "pandekage" teorien som Underwriter Laboratories testede for dem?Fjolle (497) skrev:Dokumentation tak?
Dokumentation tak?Fjolle (497) skrev:Jeg kan ikke se at de har sendt en FOIA request på dem, men har set en anden der gjorde det, og *SUPRISE!* fik dem...
Edit: Fandt det selv:
http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/
Opret dig som bruger i dag
Det er gratis, og du binder dig ikke til noget.
Når du er oprettet som bruger, får du adgang til en lang række af sidens andre muligheder, såsom at udforme siden efter eget ønske og deltage i diskussionerne.
- Forside
- ⟨
- Forum
- ⟨
- Tagwall
Gå til bund