FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
New squib quashes 'piston effect' ---> over-hyped 4 dsnf?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
SidVicious



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 338
Location: AU

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A patent?

You're kidding, right?

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidVicious



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 338
Location: AU

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ps; love the 'time machine' line! zing!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
indigitydogdignation



Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been away again. Following up on the information posted by Stallion 4, the iron spherules are a very interesting finding, and I'd like to hear Grumpy's reaction to this chart, especially in re to items "iron-03" and "iron-04."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Quote:
From the Greening quote, above: I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.


Stallion 4, how was Greening able to make his estimate, "that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2." ?

Quote:
From the same: 3. The iron spherules were ubiquitous in the WTC dust. Thus they were easy to find in a total of say 50,000 tonnes of dust.


Maybe I've overlooked something. Does anyone know from where exactly these dust samples were taken, when they were taken, and at what distances from the bases of the towers or WTC7? I'm exhausted and didn't read through all the references. This is about the only thing I've dound so far>
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/qapp/2-fig_1_sampling_area.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

indigitydogdignation

39 of 82 compounds listed contain Iron. Of all the various compounds there are many possible exothermic reactions that can produce iron spheres as a result. There is an interesting thread at physorg which has covered many of these reactions. Most, if not all, do not require temperatures remotely approaching the melting point of steel.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=0

The fact remains that all reports of "molten steel" turned out to have no supporting physical evidence.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
indigitydogdignation



Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Grumpy: 39 of 82 compounds listed contain Iron. Of all the various compounds there are many possible exothermic reactions that can produce iron spheres as a result. There is an interesting thread at physorg which has covered many of these reactions. Most, if not all, do not require temperatures remotely approaching the melting point of steel.



Grumpy, can you direct me to a particular page where "many of these reactions" have been covered, as you say? The thread you linked to is 536 pages long.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

indigitydogdignation

Unfortunately it is just as much work for me to find the specific posts as it would be for you, but several have been discussed in the last 10 pages or so. Sorry(really), but I really can't be more specific.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr wrote:
The GZ worker was Joe Casaliggi. The segment is used in that Zeitgeist movie at 38 minutes into the movie.

psik


http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=l_eFjt8CSro

_________________
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 physics is history
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

indigitydogdignation wrote:
Quote:
From the Greening quote, above: I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.


Stallion 4, how was Greening able to make his estimate, "that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2." ?

Quote:
From the same: 3. The iron spherules were ubiquitous in the WTC dust. Thus they were easy to find in a total of say 50,000 tonnes of dust.


Maybe I've overlooked something. Does anyone know from where exactly these dust samples were taken, when they were taken, and at what distances from the bases of the towers or WTC7? I'm exhausted and didn't read through all the references. This is about the only thing I've dound so far>
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/qapp/2-fig_1_sampling_area.jpg

Hi indigitydogdignation. I suggest you try contacting Dr. Greening for more information related to your questions...

Greening@sympatico.ca

And if you Google USGS, dust samples, area collected, etc. you should find answers as well. When I originally read your post last week, I Googled up most of the info you're looking for, but ended up not posting it, because something else came up and I forgot to (Embarassed sorry).

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yossarian



Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa wrote:
Grumpy wrote:
aAzzAa

Quote:
Lots of reports about explosives in this pdf. Apologies if this has been posted before.


Lots of people believe anything they see on the internet, they have no sense to be able to seperate the lies from the BS. You are their poster child.

Grumpy Cool


It would be nice to see you seperate your arrogant little ego from your rationale one day.


Allow me to assist in that endeavor, as it will be a pleasure.

As an arson investigator or an engineer or a physicist testifying before a jury under oath, you cannot make claims that the fires in either tower burned sufficiently hot enough or long enough to cause damage to the steel beams, because no science exists to support such claims.

You must look the jury in the eyes and make the following statement:

The aviation fuel was completely consumed within approximately 3 minutes and 20 seconds.

There is no science or mathematics to prove otherwise.

ESTIMATING POOL FIRE BURNING DURATION
Reference: SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 2nd Edition, 1995, Page 3-197.

tb = 4V / pD2n
Where tb = burning duration of pool fire (sec)
V = volume of liquid (m3)
D = pool diameter (m)
n = regression rate (m/sec)

Calculation for Regression Rate
n = m"/r
Where n = regression rate (m/sec)
m" = mass burning rate of fuel (kg/m2-sec)
r = liquid fuel density (kg/m3)
n = 0.000067 m/sec

Burning Duration Calculation
tb = 4V/pD2n
tb = 196.43 sec 3.27 minutes

Alas, there you have it.

The aviation fuel burned off in 3.27 minutes.

In these calculations, I give the government every possible advantage.

It is irrefutable that each aircraft had 10,000 gallons of JP5, a kerosene based aviation fuel, at impact, and that 3,000 gallons burned off immediately causing the huge billowing explosions, because both FEMA and NIST so state.

Regarding the remaining 7,000 gallons of JP5, I operate under the assumption that all 7,000 gallons remained on one floor of the WTC, and THAT IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

If we assume that fuel spilled onto the floors below, or outside of the towers, or was thrown in a spray to the floors above, or spilled down the central core, then the burn time for the JP5 IS LESS THAN 3.27 MINUTES.

Now that we have laid that issue to rest, we'll address the resulting fires.

When testifying under oath to a jury, you must also state that the fire failed to reach a temperature sufficiently high enough to have any affect on steel, and that even if temperatures had managed to reach the required point, after 90 minutes of fire, the steel deflection would have been 1 mm or less, and not catastrophic.

If questioned further, you are permitted to state that after 12 to 16 hours, the steel may reach a deflection of 5 mm, but that you would need the precise temperatures to confirm, still, the deflection is not catastrophic.

You are permitted to state that after several days, deflection may have reached 25 mm to 35 mm, but that catastrophic failure is not assured.

You have no choice. That is science and math, not wishful thinking.

This is a Standard Fire Curve.



For those few small fires that did exist, they simply weren't that bad. We have the testimony of those firefighters that survived, plus those who made radio calls in the time up to the collapse, including a radio call just minutes before collapse. In the case of the last radio call, they requested a battalion and specifically stated that the fires were under control and they wanted to move the next floor up to the impact floor to search for survivors. The additional fire battalion would have allowed a search of the remaining floors above to be conducted much more rapidly, since fire wasn't the issue, it was smoke.

Now that the issue of fire has been laid to rest and made irrelevant notwithstanding the fact that neither FEMA nor NIST bothered to address the mechanics of fire and the Standard Fire Curve, we'll look at the physics.

The floor section is only falling 12.5 feet, because that's distance between the two floors (at the most). In reality, it would have been closer to 11 feet from the floor bottom to the top of the next floor. Did the floor section reach Mach 2.3 at 12.4 feet? Because if it didn't, then there's no way the towers could fall in 9.5 seconds and 11 seconds respectively.

Our initial velocity is 0 and the floor section is falling 3.35 meters at 9.8 meters/sec^2, so the floor section is only moving 8.1 meters/sec when it has a close encounter with the floor below it.

You have another problem. The flooring was perlite. It's akin to cryolite (a sort of spray on concrete). Perlite has a density of 0.03 pounds/in^3 in contrast with normal concrete which has a density of 0.08 pounds/in^3.

The perlite flooring would go along way to explain the pulverized material and dust and as we will see, that creates a paradox.

The floor sections would be 12,480 sq ft north/south sections and 3,080 sq ft east/west sections. At 53,913 lbs (24,449 kg) and 13,305 lbs (6034 kg) of perlite respectively, with a potential energy of 802,660 J and 198,096 J.

At this point, I will take some time to explain what a "floor section" is. A floor section is, well, a section of floor. Remember, this is not a steel frame building where we have a solid poured concrete floor supported by an I-beam, or even a cross I-beam. The flooring in the towers consisted of four separate sections.

The force exerted by the perlite would be 239,600 N, and 59133 N. While that looks like a lot of force, we have to remember force isn't the issue, it's pressure. The force is distributed over a larger area, so it's 206 N*m^2 regardless.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape 206 N*m^2 is only 4 lb-force/sq ft.

And that, is what? 0.03 psi (pounds per square inch).

Anyone doubt the floor load couldn't handle 0.03 psi?

Even adding in the metal decking for the floor, the psi will increase but not much as the pressure is distributed evenly. The floor trusses also distribute pressure evenly, but not over as wide of an area. Each truss was a double truss with a transverse truss, so maybe 20% to 33% of the area. Still, it would have to exceed 25 psi to cause the floor below to collapse.

And here's where the paradox comes into play. As the towers collapse, they're breaking apart into all that dust, particulate matter and fragments we see in the video. Nothing that exists can exert pressure or force.

All that dust and debris flying about has spent its energy and has no more, so in order sustain the collapse, energy must have been added somewhere.

Here's where we have another problem. Annealed glass breaks at about 5,000-6,000 psi, unless they used tempered safety glass, common on office buildings where it would take around 36,000 psi to break.

The government's case is that the buildings collapsed because fires weakened the structures, but the science and math proves that isn't possible. The jet aviation fuel burned off literally within a few minutes and never reached a temperature hot enough to affect steel. The subsequent secondary fires did not burn long enough to reach a temperature to affect steel, and even if they had burned the full 90 minutes, a mere 1 mm deflection is not catastrophic. If that were so, there wouldn't be a building in the US greater than 4 stories. I didn't take friction and resistance into consideration, since that damages the governments claims even further. It's sufficient to state that a floor falling several meters does generate sufficient force to collapse the floor below. Arguing that the floors were forced by the weight from above fails as the floors are pulverized and destroyed and their weight and force disappears becoming non-existent, which does not permit sustained force/pressure, and certainly not enough to increase the amount of force/pressure.

Assuming Bush & Cabal leave peacefully on January 20, 2009, we can push to have all of the investigations re-opened, and this time, done properly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yossarian wrote:
aAzzAa wrote:
Grumpy wrote:
aAzzAa

Quote:
Lots of reports about explosives in this pdf. Apologies if this has been posted before.


Lots of people believe anything they see on the internet, they have no sense to be able to seperate the lies from the BS. You are their poster child.

Grumpy Cool


It would be nice to see you seperate your arrogant little ego from your rationale one day.


Allow me to assist in that endeavor, as it will be a pleasure.

As an arson investigator or an engineer or a physicist testifying before a jury under oath, you cannot make claims that the fires in either tower burned sufficiently hot enough or long enough to cause damage to the steel beams, because no science exists to support such claims.

You must look the jury in the eyes and make the following statement:

The aviation fuel was completely consumed within approximately 3 minutes and 20 seconds.

There is no science or mathematics to prove otherwise.

ESTIMATING POOL FIRE BURNING DURATION
Reference: SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 2nd Edition, 1995, Page 3-197.

tb = 4V / pD2n
Where tb = burning duration of pool fire (sec)
V = volume of liquid (m3)
D = pool diameter (m)
n = regression rate (m/sec)

Calculation for Regression Rate
n = m"/r
Where n = regression rate (m/sec)
m" = mass burning rate of fuel (kg/m2-sec)
r = liquid fuel density (kg/m3)
n = 0.000067 m/sec

Burning Duration Calculation
tb = 4V/pD2n
tb = 196.43 sec 3.27 minutes

Alas, there you have it.

The aviation fuel burned off in 3.27 minutes.

In these calculations, I give the government every possible advantage.

It is irrefutable that each aircraft had 10,000 gallons of JP5, a kerosene based aviation fuel, at impact, and that 3,000 gallons burned off immediately causing the huge billowing explosions, because both FEMA and NIST so state.

Regarding the remaining 7,000 gallons of JP5, I operate under the assumption that all 7,000 gallons remained on one floor of the WTC, and THAT IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

If we assume that fuel spilled onto the floors below, or outside of the towers, or was thrown in a spray to the floors above, or spilled down the central core, then the burn time for the JP5 IS LESS THAN 3.27 MINUTES.

Now that we have laid that issue to rest, we'll address the resulting fires.

When testifying under oath to a jury, you must also state that the fire failed to reach a temperature sufficiently high enough to have any affect on steel, and that even if temperatures had managed to reach the required point, after 90 minutes of fire, the steel deflection would have been 1 mm or less, and not catastrophic.

If questioned further, you are permitted to state that after 12 to 16 hours, the steel may reach a deflection of 5 mm, but that you would need the precise temperatures to confirm, still, the deflection is not catastrophic.

You are permitted to state that after several days, deflection may have reached 25 mm to 35 mm, but that catastrophic failure is not assured.

You have no choice. That is science and math, not wishful thinking.

This is a Standard Fire Curve.



For those few small fires that did exist, they simply weren't that bad. We have the testimony of those firefighters that survived, plus those who made radio calls in the time up to the collapse, including a radio call just minutes before collapse. In the case of the last radio call, they requested a battalion and specifically stated that the fires were under control and they wanted to move the next floor up to the impact floor to search for survivors. The additional fire battalion would have allowed a search of the remaining floors above to be conducted much more rapidly, since fire wasn't the issue, it was smoke.

Now that the issue of fire has been laid to rest and made irrelevant notwithstanding the fact that neither FEMA nor NIST bothered to address the mechanics of fire and the Standard Fire Curve, we'll look at the physics.

The floor section is only falling 12.5 feet, because that's distance between the two floors (at the most). In reality, it would have been closer to 11 feet from the floor bottom to the top of the next floor. Did the floor section reach Mach 2.3 at 12.4 feet? Because if it didn't, then there's no way the towers could fall in 9.5 seconds and 11 seconds respectively.

Our initial velocity is 0 and the floor section is falling 3.35 meters at 9.8 meters/sec^2, so the floor section is only moving 8.1 meters/sec when it has a close encounter with the floor below it.

You have another problem. The flooring was perlite. It's akin to cryolite (a sort of spray on concrete). Perlite has a density of 0.03 pounds/in^3 in contrast with normal concrete which has a density of 0.08 pounds/in^3.

The perlite flooring would go along way to explain the pulverized material and dust and as we will see, that creates a paradox.

The floor sections would be 12,480 sq ft north/south sections and 3,080 sq ft east/west sections. At 53,913 lbs (24,449 kg) and 13,305 lbs (6034 kg) of perlite respectively, with a potential energy of 802,660 J and 198,096 J.

At this point, I will take some time to explain what a "floor section" is. A floor section is, well, a section of floor. Remember, this is not a steel frame building where we have a solid poured concrete floor supported by an I-beam, or even a cross I-beam. The flooring in the towers consisted of four separate sections.

The force exerted by the perlite would be 239,600 N, and 59133 N. While that looks like a lot of force, we have to remember force isn't the issue, it's pressure. The force is distributed over a larger area, so it's 206 N*m^2 regardless.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape 206 N*m^2 is only 4 lb-force/sq ft.

And that, is what? 0.03 psi (pounds per square inch).

Anyone doubt the floor load couldn't handle 0.03 psi?

Even adding in the metal decking for the floor, the psi will increase but not much as the pressure is distributed evenly. The floor trusses also distribute pressure evenly, but not over as wide of an area. Each truss was a double truss with a transverse truss, so maybe 20% to 33% of the area. Still, it would have to exceed 25 psi to cause the floor below to collapse.

And here's where the paradox comes into play. As the towers collapse, they're breaking apart into all that dust, particulate matter and fragments we see in the video. Nothing that exists can exert pressure or force.

All that dust and debris flying about has spent its energy and has no more, so in order sustain the collapse, energy must have been added somewhere.

Here's where we have another problem. Annealed glass breaks at about 5,000-6,000 psi, unless they used tempered safety glass, common on office buildings where it would take around 36,000 psi to break.

The government's case is that the buildings collapsed because fires weakened the structures, but the science and math proves that isn't possible. The jet aviation fuel burned off literally within a few minutes and never reached a temperature hot enough to affect steel. The subsequent secondary fires did not burn long enough to reach a temperature to affect steel, and even if they had burned the full 90 minutes, a mere 1 mm deflection is not catastrophic. If that were so, there wouldn't be a building in the US greater than 4 stories. I didn't take friction and resistance into consideration, since that damages the governments claims even further. It's sufficient to state that a floor falling several meters does generate sufficient force to collapse the floor below. Arguing that the floors were forced by the weight from above fails as the floors are pulverized and destroyed and their weight and force disappears becoming non-existent, which does not permit sustained force/pressure, and certainly not enough to increase the amount of force/pressure.

Assuming Bush & Cabal leave peacefully on January 20, 2009, we can push to have all of the investigations re-opened, and this time, done properly.


That's more like it. Very good of you to explain in detail why the NIST report, as it stands presently, is unrealistic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yossarian

So many false assumptions and erroneous conclusions, where do I start???

Quote:
As an arson investigator or an engineer or a physicist testifying before a jury under oath, you cannot make claims that the fires in either tower burned sufficiently hot enough or long enough to cause damage to the steel beams, because no science exists to support such claims.

You must look the jury in the eyes and make the following statement:

The aviation fuel was completely consumed within approximately 3 minutes and 20 seconds.

There is no science or mathematics to prove otherwise.


So a housefire can not be serious because the gasoline that set it ablaze only burned a minute or two??? Are you sure you want to argue that??? So you would not be worried if I took just ONE gallon of gas and spread it through your living room and lit a match(which will only burn for 30 seconds at most)??? After all, it will only burn for a minute or two, according to your logic, should be no problem. Now multiply that times 7000. Insignificant, right???



Quote:
Regarding the remaining 7,000 gallons of JP5, I operate under the assumption that all 7,000 gallons remained on one floor of the WTC, and THAT IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT.


That is a patently false assumption, the fuel spread over multiple stories and down elevator shafts, igniting widespread fires in the paper, wooden desks, plastics in the furniture and computers, fabrics, carpet and, yes, people. There was many times the fuel value of the jp5 in the contents of those floors. The firemen said there were only small fires ON THE 78th FLOOR, THE FLOOR BELOW THE IMPACT AREA. Even there they found blown out elevators and many dead bodies.

Quote:
When testifying under oath to a jury, you must also state that the fire failed to reach a temperature sufficiently high enough to have any affect on steel, and that even if temperatures had managed to reach the required point, after 90 minutes of fire, the steel deflection would have been 1 mm or less, and not catastrophic.


This is just BS, sorry, no other word conveys the depth of the deception in this statement.

Even using your own chart we see that the standard fire curve has temperatures approaching 900-1000 degrees C in less than 30 minutes.



Quote:
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F(400-800C), not hot enough to melt steel (2750F,1500C). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100F(600C)," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800(990C) it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832F(1000C).

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel

Your own chart proves you wrong.

Quote:
Now that the issue of fire has been laid to rest and made irrelevant notwithstanding the fact that neither FEMA nor NIST bothered to address the mechanics of fire and the Standard Fire Curve, we'll look at the physics.


NIST has whole sections on the fires, you should read them, it will keep you from making such a stupid statement in the future.

Quote:
And here's where the paradox comes into play. As the towers collapse, they're breaking apart into all that dust, particulate matter and fragments we see in the video. Nothing that exists can exert pressure or force.


Not a bit of all the steel was "pulverized" and that was plenty of energy to destroy those buildings.

Quote:
The government's case is that the buildings collapsed because fires weakened the structures, but the science and math proves that isn't possible.


The science and math support the NIST reports, your ignorance of the facts doesn't change that.

Grumpy Cool

PS There were many erroneous statements in your post that I didn't bother to address, in fact the only statement that was even close to reality was that the fuel burned off fairly rapidly(those who actually studied the fires say 10 minutes, you say 3 and 1/2, but why quibble, it's as close as you got to a fact).

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://pdftohtml.markoer.org/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fire.nist.gov%2Fbfrlpubs%2Ffire05%2FPDF%2Ff05158.pdf&images=yes

Yossarian

You might want to read this before lying about NIST not studying the fires effects on the steel, it'll save some embarrassment in the future.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.