patrick.net

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.

How are muslims in southern thailand treated if they decide to take a job in the middle east? I know Indonesians are treated like dirt and certainly Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are also treated like dirt when going to Arab Countries, especially Saudi and the UAE and yet most dems apologize for them........Dems are dumb idiots, but Repubs simply don't give a fuck....so which is better of two evils???????????

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=/data/legalview/2012/May/legalview_May9.xml&section=legalview

http://www.dubaifaqs.com/passport-keeping-employer-uae.php

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/employers-holding-passports-is-legal-grey-area

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=21317

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/ministry-vows-act-over-illegal-passport-retention-19046.html#.UfyFC2Sgk0M

But if white people aren't being squeezed out of jobs by wogs then it's perfectly ok.

Although it was ruled to be illegal, please blow some more smoke up your ass if you think it's not still the norm for wog slaves.

robertoaribas says

Bap33 says

Sure wish we would have just flattened one mosque for each dead American

that is the thinking that led their zealots do do 911. I have quite a few muslim friends in southern thailand...

I did not say anything about asains lost in the lies of mohamad. asains attack for normal reasons, food, money, power, land, and chicks. asains aint crazy. I specified crazy arabs. As you well know, the arabs only see other arabs as muslams. Your friends may not know that. One dead civilian American at the hands of a self-proclaimed arab nut case = one flat masque smoldering. No warning. And, all armed arab attackers that come up against our military should be stripped nude and placed in stocks in the public square and broadcast on tv. Not harmed, not hurt, not killed, not scared, just embarassed. They fear having women see their little peepees more than they fear death. Weird.

I don't recall the Bali bombers being arabs...

That part is a fact that most people seem to overlook......I'm too lazy to find references but that is hard to disprove....if someone is interested in doing so, I'd love to see the references.

Bap33 says

As you well know, the arabs only see other arabs as muslam

I recall many people from Bali being treated as 2nd class citizens in Saudi Arabia, namely because they are not arabs.....please put the onus on yourself to do the research and post those links here...............Indonesian muslims serve as maids and nannies and are often treated like dirt in Saudi.....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/a-maids-execution-in-saudi-arabia.html

Bigsby says

don't recall the Bali bombers being arabs...

Wonder why that shit don't make CNN regularly?????

MMR says

I recall many people from Bali being treated as 2nd class citizens in Saudi Arabia, namely because they are not arabs.....please put the onus on yourself to do the research and post those links here...............Indonesian muslims serve as maids and nannies and are often treated like dirt in Saudi.....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/a-maids-execution-in-saudi-arabia.html

Bigsby says

don't recall the Bali bombers being arabs...

MMR says

I recall many people from Bali being treated as 2nd class citizens in Saudi Arabia, namely because they are not arabs.....please put the onus on yourself to do the research and post those links here...............Indonesian muslims serve as maids and nannies and are often treated like dirt in Saudi.....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/a-maids-execution-in-saudi-arabia.html

Bigsby says

don't recall the Bali bombers being arabs...

Duh, I've lived and worked in Kuwait for over a decade. I've got plenty of insight on the topic, but none of that relates to the stupid post made by Bap about Asians.

Congratulations.....I suppose you deserve a cookie.....Thin Mint or Samoa

Bigsby says

MMR says

I recall many people from Bali being treated as 2nd class citizens in Saudi Arabia, namely because they are not arabs.....please put the onus on yourself to do the research and post those links here...............Indonesian muslims serve as maids and nannies and are often treated like dirt in Saudi.....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/a-maids-execution-in-saudi-arabia.html

Bigsby says

don't recall the Bali bombers being arabs...

Duh, I've lived and worked in Kuwait for over a decade. I've got plenty of insight on the topic, but none of that relates to the stupid post made by Bap about Asians.

Since youve been in arabia so long.....do Arabs see other muslims as equal....I think that was a significant point that Bap was trying to make

Please link me back to the point Bap was making that I may have missed

Congratulations on a couple of very insightful replies. Sorry, just joking.

What do people working in Kuwait do for fun?.......I think you deserve a reward for taking a job there......and then not presenting the whole picture......Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indonesians are treated like dirt and all you can do is nitpick about Bap......awesome for a white boy.

MMR says

Since youve been in arabia so long.....do Arabs see other muslims as equal....I think that was a significant point that Bap was trying to make

Are arabs a homogenous group? No. Do all people think the same? No. Do richer people take advantage of those who are poorer? Frequently.
I thought the point Bap was foolishly making was that arab muslims are crazy unlike asian muslims.

MMR says

What do people working in Kuwait do for fun?.......I think you deserve a reward for taking a job there......and then not presenting the whole picture......Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indonesians are treated like dirt and all you can do is nitpick about Bap......awesome for a white boy.

Oh well done. Do you think I should cure hunger and bring peace to the world at the same time?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

arab muslims are crazy

There are no people crazier than the neocons, because they often have access to nuclear options and want to take over the world as well.

I didn't say arab muslims were crazy, Bap did. And yes, we've fully gathered you are a paranoid conspiracy nut.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

I didn't say arab muslims were crazy, Bap did. And yes, we've fully gathered you are a paranoid onspiracy nut.

You missed my ebook that talks about the neocons and especially about Patrick Clawson. Here is a neocon who, after neocons are blamed for 9/11 conspiracy, flaunts in the face another call for a false flag. Bigsby, wake up buddy.

I suspect I wasn't the only person who missed it. A good job too considering you went back and forth with the one reviewer of your then free book who didn't take a shine to it.

I'm not a neocon by any stretch of the Imagination.....being a wog and all.....but geez......worse than Arab muslims, especially wahhabis who practice Islam as it was practiced in the 14th century????????.......I mean really, how much more conservative can you get that that......The American Religious Right simply can't hold a candle to that level of conservatism today........Maybe in a 1000 years but definitely not today.......

Bigsby says

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

arab muslims are crazy

There are no people crazier than the neocons, because they often have access to nuclear options and want to take over the world as well.

I didn't say arab muslims were crazy, Bap did. And yes, we've fully gathered you are a paranoid onspiracy nut.

bgamall4 says

My point is, Bigsby, that this neocon is not helping your argument that neocons don't call for false flags. They do. Here is one on tape, Clawson!

That wasn't my argument. I simply said you were a paranoid conspiracy nut. And as with any group, there are loons who say all sorts of bollocks. Just look at you.

@MMR, you might notice that what you replied to was a response to Bgamall. And it really wasn't that long ago that christians practiced a very conservative form of the religion. Some still do. And given the length of time the two religions have been around...

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

That wasn't my argument.

So you admit that the neocons called for a false flag prior to 9/11 right? Or do you even know what you admit?

Because that was of course what I said. Oh, hang on, no it wasn't.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

suspect I wasn't the only person who missed it. A good job too considering you went back and forth with the one reviewer of your then free book who didn't take a shine to it.

Thanks for the insult. Again, neocons wanting false flags have occurred before this election, 2012, with Clawson and prior to the 2000 election with PNAC speaking about a new Pearl Harbor.

Only an idiot could not connect these dots Bigsby.

It wasn't an insult. There is one review on Amazon and you proceeded to have a back and forth with him.

I agreed with you

Bigsby says

@MMR, you might notice that what you replied to was a response to Bgamall. And it really wasn't that long ago that christians practiced a very conservative form of the religion. Some still do. And given the length of time the two religions have been around...

MMR says

I agreed with you

Bigsby says

@MMR, you might notice that what you replied to was a response to Bgamall. And it really wasn't that long ago that christians practiced a very conservative form of the religion. Some still do. And given the length of time the two religions have been around...

Hardly, you were playing one thing off with the other.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Because that was of course what I said. Oh, hang on, no it wasn't.

So you cannot connect the dots between the original mention of a false flag by the PNAC neocons and then 9/11 and the most recent mention of false flags by a neocon and Romney unexpectedly lost. Remember, when that call was made, the chief neocon, Rove, believed that Romney was a certain winner.

Don't worry, I won't be buying your ebook.