Waiting on you to answer the question posed to you. Don't be a coward, link up. The insult was about PBL. Are you she?
Au contraire PBL ... you are attempting to flame, is it some teenage level pleasure you get from it ??? YOU made certain claims and it is your responsibility to show them ... so PBL can you back up what you state ???
Maybe you should start by trying to offer up evidence of claims you've made in this thread. Baby steps.
Back up your claims ... or are you really just a pointless troll, flaccidly attempting to flame ??? My name is NOT Yousef ... your attempt to insult reaches no-where near its intended target ... you really are just too predictable to be anything other than boring.
Good of you finally to admit ... that spinning is all you have. Now just admit you're another of PBL's really smelly socks and then we can all move along ...
Clearly you missed this link I provided concerning your claim, because I'm sure you would have addressed it had you seen it. http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100466/1007/BUSINESS
SOCK ALERT!! I'm betting she won't make 100 posts. The mods cleaned out the sock drawer pretty fast last time.
It is getting rather whiffy in here now ... nothing worse than the same dirty laundry messing up the place.
Nope ... the ONLY truly sad desperate thing here is that you need to pretend so many names to vent the SAME old whines ...
Woe...they called in for MAJOR backup. Pulling out all the stops. I guess Mr. Fetzer caused them to hit the panic button. For the intelligent reader....go about a year plus back, and look for various posters that were there then, and turn up here now.....AGAIN.. Judge for yourself.
Quote from the Edinburgh Research Abstract: This paper uses a finite element model to investigate the stability of the Twin-Towers of the World Trade Center, New York for a number of different fire scenarios. This investigation does not take into account the structural damage caused by the terrorist attack. However the fire scenarios included are based upon the likely fires that could have occurred as a result of the attack. A number of different explanations of how and why the Towers collapsed have appeared since the event. None of these however have adequately focused on the most important issue, namely ‘what structural mechanisms led to the state which triggered the collapse’. Also, quite predictably, there are significant and fundamental differences in the explanations of the WTC collapses on offer so far. A complete consensus on any detailed explanation of the definitive causes and mechanisms of the collapse of these structures is well nigh impossible given the enormous uncertainties in key data (nature of the fires, damage to fire protection, heat transfer to structural members and nature and extent of structural damage for instance). There is however a consensus of sorts that the fires that burned in the structures after the attack had a big part to play in this collapse. The question is how big? Taking this to the extreme, this paper poses the hypothetical question, “had there been no structural damage would the structure have survived fires of a similar magnitude”? A robust but simple computational and theoretical analysis has been carried out to answer this question. Robust because no gross assumptions have been made and varying important parameters over a wide range shows consistent behaviour supporting the overall conclusions. Simple because all results presented can be checked by any structural engineer either theoretically or using widely available structural analysis software tools. The results are illuminating and show that the structural system adopted for the Twin-Towers may have been unusually vulnerable to a major fire. The analysis results show a simple but unmistakable collapse mechanism that owes as much (or more) to the geometric thermal expansion effects as it does to the material effects of loss of strength and stiffness. The collapse mechanism discovered is a simple stability failure directly related to the effect of heating (fire). Additionally, the mechanism is not dependent upon failure of structural connections Like I said, it's all about the info used for the inputs. Clearly these guys admit, they didn't use the structural damage from the aircraft as part of the analysis, this in itself invalidates this study. Furthermore they admit to the "enormous uncertainties in key data". So in my opinion this report is, INVALID
I have some questions for those who do not believe that 9/11 was in any shape, way, or form anything other than what was reported though: How do you know that the US government didn't have 'any' involvement whatsoever? I mean, do you have no doubts? None at all? Everything that you've seen, heard, and/or read has made sense to you about 9/11 since September 11th, 2001? Is there not evidence, which would suggest an inside job, that is in existence, but from the 1960s? Operation Northwoods raises a flag in my mind. Does it not raise one in yours? I didn't know anything about Northwoods until last year. I shook my head just as I am now remembering how I felt reading the Wikipedia page about it...and then finding the declassified documents themselves. It made me wonder. Alternatively, isn't there evidence that the US government had advanced knowledge of a coming terrorist attack? I know the retort that comes naturally afterward - that they know something was up, but didn't have the specifics. The thing that has bothered me is all of the intelligence the US received from foreign countries. What 'exactly' did those reports indicate? The US was getting reports of it early in 2001. Does this not raise any flags in anybodies mind?
And we all know what truther opinions are like,don't we?....they are free to conduct their study any way they want,in this case,they focused on the fires,not the structural damage, probably because of the oft repeated truther mantra 'no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire'
My opinions enough to have you and your cronies gangbanging trying to suppress them or get them completely removed form the board. I know when I am taking a lot of flak, I am right on target.
Oh please,get off the fargin' cross....someone needs the wood.... NO ONE is trying to supress you,or censor you and if your posts get removed here,you can bet the moderator had a reason...