patrick.net

I know everything.
I don't have any inclination to post any facts to educate those with lesser knowledge. LOL

upisdown says

History tells you everything you need to know. You're focusing upon detailed specifics instaed of charactoristics of every major event in the last 100 years.

This is the right approach. Do not keep arguing about unanswered questions until the end of times. Read WG Tarpley's " Synthetic Terror Made in USA", the most profound study of 9/11. If you have time check out Dimitri Khalezov_9_11 the third truth. Learn.

The Professor says

I could say, "Anyone who believes that steel frame buildings can pulverize themselves by office fires is an idiot", But I don't.

The problem with saying that would be, it's a strawman argument. When steel is heated, it becomes easier to bend, as anyone can see. That fact has been known since ancient times, and yet 9/11 conspiracy theorists overlook it. When you heat trusses and columns that have a lot of weight on them, they can bend and collapse. There is no need for explosives, conspiracies, or anything else, just heat.

you may think that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.....

but what about the stuff they put in the jets to make those "Chem trails" who knows what's in that stuff or how hot it burns ..

Alex Rademacher says

jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel

The steel did not need to melt, it needed only to weaken enough to bend under the weight from above. Once the bending started, there was no way to stop the collapse. That's why steel buildings always have fire insulation, although alas the twin towers did not have good enough fire insulation on 9/11.

curious2 says

The steel did not need to melt, only weaken enough to bend under the weight from above.

At which point all the pillars in the basement got blown up in both WTC towers and the entire building disintegrated into dust!

Weakened steel does not blow the columns or disintegrative steel or concrete.

BULLSHIT!

Never in history before 2001 have three buildings that were concrete steel reinforced crumbled due to fire

NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

But you are supposed to believe it like the sheople you are.

curious2 says

That's why steel buildings always have fire insulation, although alas the twin towers did not have good enough fire insulation on 9/11.

Is that why the grey smoke was billowing out of the building due to the fire suppression systems kicking in , WHAT FIRE! confirmed by fireman on the scene!

The NASA recorded temperature was not hot enough to do whatever these morons are claiming.

And don't forget the billions in gold and silver bullion that just vanished!!!!!

curious2 says

Once the bending started, there was no way to stop the collapse.

Bending is not splintering, shredding or disintegrating, is it!

What do you think the odds of 3 buildings that caught fire collapse into perfect pancakes?

It is PHYSICALLY impossible and mathematically improbable. These kinds of buildings have "NEVER" collapsed EVER! Some have burned for days and days without falling. Let alone fold into a pancacke straight down.

It's just too perfect.

Some people said here that the steel bent? well if it bent why did the building not bow , nope, it just fell straight down like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Why did the second building fall first? If the fire burned much longer in building 1 and according to some delusional logic that fire did it , Answer that.

It is proven the fire did not burn for long as the you think in the videos, we see tons of grey smoke due to the fire suppression kicking in. Fireman confirmed this.

Fireman also confirmed the explosions in the basement eye witnesses said it looked like molten lava down there, long before the towers collapsed and no fire ever reached them.

I see 'the professor' is off again peddling the same old crap. Wash, rinse, repeat. Surprise, surprise.

I was not aware of a fire raging there. No footage really shows that kind of thing, but I see your point. It just seems kinda odd. I thought it just was vibrated into failure. Was the fire due to the planes crashing or something else and it just happend to match the time frame of the crashes? That could have been the case. Totally serious questions here, not any type of bs.

WHat do you think about the straight drop vs a lopsides tip over for the big buildings?

Bap33 says

I also dont see why the towers went down in a tight footprint, instead of tipping over, like a pez despenser.

Bop69, I will think of this comment whenever you tell other people how to live. The towers didn't tip over like a tree, or if you prefer a Pez dispenser, because they were strong enough to resist the airplane impacts; each had been designed specifically to withstand a 707, an earthquake, and NYC's 100mph windstorms. The towers fell because heat from the fires weakened their structural steel until it buckled, at which point gravity pulled them down. As anyone with even a grade school education could explain to you, gravity always pulls down. As anyone who has studied even high school physics could tell you, when the upper floors of a building come down, they strike the lower floors with a force proportionate to the square of their velocity, in addition to their weight. Your inability to comprehend this fact, more than a decade after witnessing it in action, shows truly astonishing stupidity. What amazes me about ignorance is, the most ignorant people are the most blind to their own ignorance, and opine with arrogant certitude about how other people whom they've never met should be required to live their own lives. I count that as one of the costs of Bronze Age religions; people listen to a preacher, and if they feel like they understood the sermon, they feel like they know all they need to know, even though those sermons are a little short on science.

Bap33 says

I thought it just was vibrated into failure.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose, since heat is a vibration, I will give you this one. Yes, vibrations in the form of heat caused the buildings to fail. Most people would call those vibrations by a more common name: fire.

I suppose retirement constitutes losing your career.

Bap33 says

I was not aware of a fire raging there. No footage really shows that kind of thing, but I see your point. It just seems kinda odd. I thought it just was vibrated into failure. Was the fire due to the planes crashing or something else and it just happend to match the time frame of the crashes? That could have been the case. Totally serious questions here, not any type of bs.

WHat do you think about the straight drop vs a lopsides tip over for the big buildings?

There's this thing called the internet that has videos like this on it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Are you saying that doesn't look like a rather serious fire?

He was a tenured professor. As you aren't actually a professor, perhaps you should google how difficult it is to get rid of such employees. He was put on paid leave and shortly after that retired without fighting his case. That in no way shape or form constitutes being forced out.

And you don't look at the evidence. You simply keep repeating all your go to truther spiel. Unbiased indeed.

guys guys guys ... you mis-read my posts. I am not suggesting anything weird happened, I'm just asking questions outloud. Geeze.

Bap33 says

guys guys guys ... you mis-read my posts. I am not suggesting anything weird happened, I'm just asking questions outloud. Geeze.

No, you made a completely inaccurate statement that you have now glossed over.

The Professor says

Bap33 says

I am not suggesting anything weird happened, I'm just asking questions outloud. Geeze.

You're just questioning the government BS and something weird did happen; for the first time in history a steel framed building supposedly collapsed from office fires.

Blah, blah, blah. Every steel frame building is of course constructed the same. Every fire is the same. Oh, hang on...

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Blah, blah, blah. Every steel frame building is of course constructed the same. Every fire is the same. Oh, hang on...

Do you have anything to add to the debate Bigs?

There's nothing to debate. You will just go ahead and post up the same old videos/arguments whenever you want to stroke your ego and then willfully ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Some contrary evidence to counter the above 'facts'? How about everything that hasn't been filtered through your bullshit conspiracy websites? Real science, real research. You should try it some time 'professor'.

The Professor says

No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire alone. World trade Center Seven collapsed from fire alone according to the official story.

lol, these fools on Patnet don't care about facts.

"NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE ALONE, EVER "

A steel framed building has burned for over 24hrs and not fallen.

On top of that we are now we supposed to believed that this steel and concrete reinforced buildings ( 3 of them) all BENT under fire and collapsed (never ever happened before or will happen again) and still fell like a PANCAKE! Not toppled over but shredded, disintegrated and EXPLODED!

WAKE UP YOU FOOLS! WAKE UP!

NASA already produced the heat indexes for the fires and they are not high enough to melt the "reinforced steel" made in Japan, to very high standards.
It did not burn for very long either and the fire suppression systems kicked in producing grey smoke. confirmed by witnesses and fireman on the scene inside the building.

Many fireman witnesses confirmed explosions in the basement producing molten lava of the connecting columns well before the collapses. No fire every reached the basement.

!

Puhim, the physics, metallurgy and demolition expert, speaks.

Wouldn't 100% of the jet fuel be gone right after impact?

Self recognition of one's flaws is the first step towards recovery.
Glad you've made that first step.

robertoaribas says

It is nice that patrick provides this webspace for the extremely mentally weak fringe idiots to get together.

steele is not a fuel source, so I would expect the fuel/consumables to be removed when the fuel source is spent and the steele left standing there. Cement is not a fuel source either. So, smoldering frame makes sense.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Puhim, the physics, metallurgy and demolition expert, speaks.

So you got nothing but insult. Thank you for your contribution.

It's not an insult. He is none of those things and neither are you, and yet you both think you have greater insight than the overwhelming number of such people who have shown your tin-foil hat 9/11 conspiracy nonsense for what it is, complete and utter bullshit.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

you both think you have greater insight than the overwhelming number of such people who have shown your tin-foil hat 9/11 conspiracy nonsense for what it is, complete and utter bullshit.

Links? Or all you have is insult.

You have eyes and fingers. Look back at all the previous posts/threads on this topic and/or use this thing called google... but avoid using words such as conspiracy/truther/etc... I'm not going to do it for you because
a. I can't be bothered. It's easy enough to do for even those blinded by conspiracy. You will, however, simply ignore the evidence from real experts on the matter in favour of Youtube videos posted up by 18 year-olds.
b. You just want to use the opportunity to regurgitate the same old shite you've been tediously posting for months now.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

I can't be bothered

So you got nothing. Thanks for posting. If you ever come up with some real evidence please post it for us.

I'm not a physicist, metallurgist or demolition expert. What exactly do you expect me to give you? A large number of links have been posted up on numerous threads, but you have chosen to completely dismiss them all in favour of a bunch of stupid Youtube videos. The real evidence has been shown to you countless times. It's in countless places all over the internet courtesy of actual research done by actual specialists. You just choose to dismiss it all because you THINK you are so much smarter. You aren't.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

The real evidence has been shown to you countless times. It's in countless places all over the internet courtesy of actual research done by actual specialists.

Do you mean NIST, FEMA, Popular mechanics? What do you consider "real" evidence?

It does not take a physicist to see that WT7 did not come down by fire alone. Can you link to some physicist that DO believe in the official story?

It doesn't matter what site or which person anyone links to as you will simply dismiss them in favour of your uninformed conspiracy beliefs and those who reinforce them.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

It doesn't matter what site or which person anyone links to as you will simply dismiss them in favour of your uninformed conspiracy beliefs and those who reinforce them.

So you got nothing. Come back with some evidence.

How about: http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm they are quite convincing.

You must have an unusual understanding of the word nothing.

steele is not a fuel source. cement is not a fuel source. Right?

robertoaribas says

Bap33 says

steele is not a fuel source. cement is not a fuel source. Right?

the yield point for steele gets much weaker when heated.

the plane crash itself severed several of the supports, so the remaining ones had to hold the entire load, which was already beyond design point, then add in the fire.

You'd know this, if you did any research, and you weren't a complete dumbass.

lol .. hey, pisa, my question was about the 3rd building. But hey, if you were not such a piaso you would know that, tu pendejo.

Bap33 says

steele is not a fuel source. cement is not a fuel source. Right?

why such mean talk over a simple question? I dont get you guys sometimes.

robertoaribas says

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

If you choose to live with shit in your head, believing this conspiracy crap, don't act so surprised when the non retarded rest of society doesn't take you seriously.

That's right call people retards, that should win them over.

It is you who is a deluded Preprogrammed Zombie, i'm surprised your not on benefits because you are obviously incapable of independent thought. It won't take much, confiscation of you bank accounts and property should get you on the right track..

Wake up Zombie!

The Professor says

According to the official story an office fire caused a beam to sag and fall
off initiating a cascade of failure where over 400 mechanical connections (Welds
and bolted connections) per SECOND failed and the building collapsed into a pile
of broken beams and pulverized concrete at almost free fall speed.

Could you post a link to the relevant part of the official report? Where it describes the mechanism that you state above?

Bap33 says

Bap33 says

steele is not a fuel source. cement is not a fuel source. Right?

why such mean talk over a simple question? I dont get you guys sometimes.

Looking at my e-mails recently, I saw that Bap33 had Liked one of my comments, which was nice of him, so I'll reply seriously to the two questions above.

Steel and cement are not generally fuel sources at the relevant temperatures on 9/11.

In NYC, "fireproof" buildings are designed to withstand four hours of fire, which is usually plenty of time for NYFD to extinguish the fire. On 9/11, jet airliners damaged the structure of the twin towers, and jet fuel started enormous office fires burning on multiple floors at the same time. Each floor was an acre in size. As one firefighter put it, you're looking at 40 acres of fire. Most of the jet fuel exploded outside the buildings, but the spray acted like lighter fluid on a barbecue: it got everything burning all at once. When the steel supports heated, they became more flexible, and could no longer support the load from above. After around an hour, they collapsed, killing thousands of people including hundreds of firefighters.

With a substantial % of the fire department dead, and unknown numbers of others trapped in the rubble, NYFD concentrated on trying to rescue anyone they could rescue from the rubble. More than a dozen people were rescued who would otherwise have died.

Meanwhile, WTC7 was evacuated. It was badly damaged and fires were burning on several floors. A decision was made to let it burn and collapse. That process took all day. It fell sometime in the late afternoon, having stood the required 4 hours and more.

Contrast the Deutsche Bank building across the street from the south tower. That building stood, but had to be demolished very slowly over several years.

As for why people get upset, the conspiracy theorists insist on seeing things that aren't there, and turn a huge tragedy into their own personal soapbox and ego games. The memory of 9/11 hurts. People don't like seeing it abused by nutjobs for their own agendas. I suppose it's a bit like how some veterans react to seeing punks burn the flag. Now, to return you to the usual partisan bickering, for many people that manipulation of 9/11 includes using it as a way to sell the war in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

I hope that answers your questions.

thank you for that response. I happen to think it all happened as it looked on TV when it happened. And the scope of the deal is impossible for me to grasp from tv only. My uncle went and seen Ground Zero while it was still smoldering. He is(was) a big time contractor and was amazed at the site and the sight.
Sure wish we would have just flattened one mosque for each dead American. No warning, no excuses, no second chance, and then a notice that we will do the same from hence forth. One dead American from any crazy arab will result in one flattened mosque. Period. One for One - that's a fair response. In my opinion.