9/11 WTC Demolitions, American Anger Lives On! The Criminals Exposed!

Let's see. You said:

You then said you're always the plaintiff, so the hypothetical case must be yours. Support for this comes from the fact that you're the one that demanded plague311 "take the stand" so that you could interview him about your alleged evidence

Remember? This is your case, not plague's There was never any ambiguity on that point. The only reason you got confused is that you demanded he disclose the source of your own evidence. This clear attempt to befuddle plague apparently backfired and succeeded in befuddling you into admitting your case is frivolous.

I must have missed the point in the discussion where you provided your deposition. Pick a photograph, document the source of the photograph, or better yet provide access to the actual piece of steel, make your complaint, and I'll be glad to provide you with my opinion.

 

Now that is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hilarious.

Here we go peeps, here is another debunker who will believe anything just because it comes from the gubbermint WITHOUT ANY CHAIN CUSTODY VALIDATION (or even where the crap came from in the first place) but even though we can clearly see ******* gross is standing there hanging on to the same piece I am talking about in the pictures he requires it from me!

we get it!

 

Is the total sum of your game to accuse people of your own actions? I made no claims about the photos. You are the one that keeps posting them in reference to some ambiguous argument you refuse to make. If you believe something about them am I to assume you have a chain of custody that supports your conclusion? Where is it? Why don't you provide it?

 

everyone needs a good laugh man.

Its as hilarious as when debunkers talked about and still talk about raging inferno in the wtc 2 when there was no fire bigger than a BBQ fire to be found anywhere just prior to its demolition. LOL

Like I said you want to play the chain of custody game then everything the gubbermintalia did will be tossed right in the trash where it belongs!

That ok though we all get it, that is your need to duck and dodge anything as obviously undeniable and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing as those pics.

 

You won't even say what it is your talking about. How can you accuse someone of playing chain of custody games when you refuse to establish exactly what it is you're talking about? You keep demanding we explain what happened to items in photographs you provided but you refuse to detail exactly what the photograph is. If that's what you call debate I'll step up to the plate. Unless the truther movement can explain the following photograph the whole argument should be assumed to be garbage:



Anyone that actually thinks Koko is making any truthful claims about the NIST report should read NCSTAR 1-3C. Within, specific sections he claimed were ignored are discussed.

 

I've identified the source of this GIF. Ironically, it documents a sample section that was removed from panel K-16 for testing documented in the NIST report. The findings begin on page 229 of NCSTAR 1-3C. The confirmation of the source image can be found in figure 6-23 on page 267.

What's very interesting about the findings that is that erosion took place when the column was horizontal. Since the column was vertical in the building, the erosion could not have taken place as a precursor to the collapse. The erosion took place after the collapse.

 

no not interesting at all.

15 centuries of salt water (like) "erosion" in 10 years.

Whos brilliant analysis is that?


and NCSTAR 1-3C starts at 287, imagine that LOL

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/art032.html

 

No it doesn't. The link you gave is for Appendices A-G. It says so right in the title. Sloppy.

Is this an admission that you've never read the report?

You should give it a glance, counsellor.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

Maybe then you wouldn't make such easily refutable claims about what it does and does not discuss. In the very least you'll have a better idea what page it starts on.

 

You really need me to remind you about your laughable sunk titanic flaming pyro claim again? Standing on your soap box isnt a refutation.

Post the link.

Not that it changes anything in what I said.

15 centuries of erosion in 10 years.

 

Yeah, you do. Go ahead and remind me where you refuted the chemical properties of iron. Oh, do you mean the couple of times you posted an animated gif of somebody rubbing one kind of substance with another kind of substance with no science at all to back up your claims? You're gonna need a taller soap box, counsellor.

You mean that clickable green string of letters in the post you quoted? The one that directs you to the entire NIST report, not just appendix a-g of NCSTAR 1-3c?

Keep heading off that cliff. No need to change course at all.

 

Awesome post.

 

I do not need to refute the chemical properties of iron to show your application of it is insane, any more than I have to show the chemical properties of gasoline to prove it burns when brought near a flame. I proved that iron may be pryo but only bursts into flames under specific conditions, not just because it hits oxygen. I dont know where you dig that pseudo science crap up from. In fact others have tried to explain it to you also.


Neither do I need to pull up nists report since the do not explain how that steel has 15 centuries of erosion in 10 years, well actually it closer to a couple when the actual pics were taken.

So since you are the steel expert I am sure you can tell us how that happened.

 

The little engine huffed and puffed and chuffed but no matter how many times he said I think I can, everyone knew he had no chance of making it up the hill.

 

and this






wow look at all that melted steel!















Ok so for the record steel expert Fang has NO EXPLANATION as to how that top piece of steel show 15 centuries of erosion in only a couple of years!

That being the case it goes without saying that he cant tell us why the above piece gets paper thin.

Just like something vaporized the end....Hmmmmm



I know lets do an easy one.

Why not tell us how come nist only accounts for maybe 70% of the steel? Where is the rest of it?

 

first you tell us what energy could 'vaporize' said steel,without turning lower mathattan into a blast furnace?

 

Let me know when you've read the report so we can discuss it.

 

This page intentionally left blank.

 

its not my job to tell you why the hell nearly 50% of the steel is unaccounted for. you are the one selling the OS.

maybe it was magic huh?

 

sorry koko,YOU'RE the one claiming it was 'vaporized',and YOU'RE the one that doesn't know what happens to steel that's stretched to failing



we'll chalk this up in the 'questions not answered by koko,AGAIN' column

 

You still haven't read the report? Doesn't it have enough pictures for you?

 

I've checked but I can't find a youtube vid of it.

 

much of the steel is unaccounted for. Whats hard to understand about that?

Second the edges of otherwise 1/2" plus thick columns are paper thin.

No valid explanation exists.

Maybe osama bin laden was really an alien and used his disruptor ray gun and beamed the rest up?

Yep thats gotta be it!

The only other alternatives is the NIST is hiding them, or they somehow disappeared.

You have no other choices.

Choose your poison

 

Porno mags have a lot of pictures too.

Doesnt mean you wont catch something in real life.

I already told you what my copy said.

you refuse to post a link to the pdf, not my problem.

Its been several years had they said anything validly applicable I'd have remembered it.

They did not. red herring analysis same as your pyro crap.

 

So you don't even read your own posts? You quoted my link to the PDF right in your own post. You can't remember something you've never read. I suggest you read your own posts, find the link of mine that you quoted, and read the report.

 

you did not post the link to a specific pdf, stop pretending that you did