Geez, Koko, I didn't realize you believed in mini nukes. That puts a whole different light on this. There is no slightest indication that a nuclear explosion occurred. There is evidence that no nuclear explosion occurred. There is no damage consistant with a nuclear explosion. I do not care how small the nuclear device is, it will still be (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LOUD. You lose.
You need to have some relevant training in any of a number of fields to prove that twoofiness is not just more silliness invented by the Nazis to troll for useful idiots. Sorry, but theologians and ecconomists, even lawyers without specific training in arson investigations just aint got the chops to tell a hose dragger or construction laborer that something about a buiding's performance in a fire is not right.
well I try to show them there errors of their ways but like a timex they take a beating and keep on ticking! LMAO as far as they are concerned if wile e can do it its all good! LOL 3 centuries of rust in a couple years people getting shot out of buildings at 70 mph
where did I say I believed in mini nukes? this is NOT about mini nukes,. someone brought up that tarded question on how come no one would notice anything being brought in. Self proclaimed professionals coming in with childrens arguments there were lots of explosions that trougher ***** ignore and pretend did not exist because it does not have the government stamp of good housekeeping seal.
and you are a military fireman and a cook? LOL that really speaks to your qualifications as well. wow look at that! just disintegrated! and fang thinks that if you powder steel it should burst into flames when hitting oxygen even after proving that is not true. All troughers do is pedal bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and 1/2 truths it seems
You can always tell a truther by their inability to tell the difference between a nuclear bomb and a computer. http://m.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1012227/suitcase-nuke-pc-mod-average -camera
Tarded? LMAO. So... you have no evidence of demolition, after you talk about explosions not from the plane, and when asked to explain why nobody saw demolitions being installed, you post a picture of a nuke. Then, when questioned about the nuke, you claim that wasn't your argument and slander the original request for explanation. SPIN BABY SPIN You don't even care about facts. Nor do you care about what really happened. You care about the theory simply for entertainment. Kind of disgusting.
That very issue is what drew me to 9/11 forums many years ago. After years of trying to explain how incredibly difficult that would be to occur undetected, I just gave up.
there does that make you happy? Can troughers be any more impotent that this? Wait yes they can I forgot
Was that camera nuke what brought down that CGI tower falling over you posted previously? You really vett your evidence don't you koko.
You are trying to prove that a demolition did not occur, and you have no facts NOTHING to back it up but speculation and guesses n by gollys. You want me, mr joe q public to believe you then (*)(*)(*)(*)ing prove you are tell int the truth. Face it you have NOTHING and even if it could be shown that no one seen demolitions placed throughout the building it still does not qualify as proof demolitions were not in the building. more trougher childish arguments that have been debunked by truthers ad(*)(*)(*)(*)ingboringustotears. here is a guy that gets blasted out of a window at 70 mph. apparently had the osama bun laden jumper assistance ejector installed and nobody saw that either I guess mainstream media forgot to show you that huh? how about da big bodda boom? nothing similar in a troughers mind I know.
Now I have asked you for your model and all I get is trougher babble! translated in laymans terms that you at least should be able to understand, that means that the floor truss once losing it strength to support its original load, it is impossible for it to load (stress) the walls with greater load than it had prior to losing its strength. I have never heard of such tarded (*)(*)(*)(*) as comes out of this nist report. Well unless you believe trusses presumably heated to 400 degrees can sustain and exert greater loads than they could at room temperature. The model demonstrates this to you quite clearly. Since you parrot the 911 propaganda mantra I am sure you believe that however professional licensed architect that you claim to be. Now there is a way that they can pull in the outer walls and its really simple, building one demonstrates that beeeeee eeeeeeee you teee fully! On the other hand now you got a serious conundrum that you cannot bull(*)(*)(*)(*) your way out of LOL yeh of course its entertainment, because troughers are like a old timex they take a beating and just keep right on ticking!
KOKO shows a picture of a military shipping case and calls it a 'mini nuke'? Heck,I have one similar that I put my telescope in...
That a weapon exists is not evidence even that it could have been used. You still have steaming mounds of SQUAT.
whats the matter with you people? try to keep up. this is not about nukes. its about you all being trapped and having no way out but to dodge the point or concede. cqant have weak trusses and pull in the walls at the same time. thats trougher delusion.
Actually, weak trusses can pull weak columns in. The columns in a good part of the towers were only about half as strong as they were supposed to be because they had been heated to around 1000F.
that makes no sense, I have already shown that it is impossible with exception to dropping the core. If you think you have something show your model not your babble. translated in laymans terms that you at least should be able to understand, that means that the floor truss once losing it strength to support its original load, it is impossible for it to load (stress) the walls with greater load than it had prior to losing its strength. I have never heard of such tarded (*)(*)(*)(*) as comes out of this nist report. Well unless you believe trusses presumably heated to 400 degrees can sustain and exert greater loads than they could at room temperature. The model demonstrates this to you quite clearly. Since you parrot the 911 propaganda mantra I am sure you believe that however professional licensed architect that you claim to be. Now there is a way that they can pull in the outer walls and its really simple, building one demonstrates that beeeeee eeeeeeee you teee fully! On the other hand now you got a serious conundrum that you cannot bull(*)(*)(*)(*) your way out of LOL yeh of course its entertainment, because troughers are like a old timex they take a beating and just keep right on ticking!
The core had nothing to do with the damage to the perimeter columns. You still need to demonstrate that the floors would, neccessarily, detach from the perimeter columns. No, of course they could not. But you have still not shown that they would disconnect from the perimeter columns just because of the heat. We still do not see what your point, if you have one, is.
The problem is that all you cooks and janitors should have stuck to your day jobs. The north tower indisputably lost the core first which is the only case the perimeter could be pulled in because nists example is not mathemetically possible. I know you dont get it. Like your flying debris over pressure theory that is laughable. Look at nabs posts, so far out of his league he is completely neutered. the north tower lost the core first osama bun laden jumper assistance ejector installed I guess mainstream media forgot to show you that huh? da big bodda boom? Any more questions that show you do not know what you are talking about?
you dont know what any thread is about regardless of circumstance, but feel free to explain to everyone one why in reality the above would not apply to the wtc. dont worry you drunks can swerve where ever you want, I will be happy to continue correcting the errors of your ways.
