9/11 Emergency Room, page 2

Originally posted by ANOK
I Haven't abandoned any thread, 911 forum is not my priority in life. Do you have something to say I have already heard? Why are you so concerned with what I have to say anyway? I thought I was just a retarded uneducated stupid "truther"?

I'm so concerned with what you have to say because you are loud and aggressive the instant you believe you have a point. You try to beat people with the laws of physics and claim they're on your side, but refuse to do the most trivial research (read a few page long paper) when challenged on it.

I am not going to wade through a paper I have already read to find what you claim. If you have a point then state it, quote the pertinent part, and explain in your own words why you think it's true. I am here to debate you not someone else's paper.

You don't have to 'wade through' a paper. It's only a few pages long, and it shows you the resulting action of the trusses that you claim is literally impossible. If you want to debate me then fine, I can quote the pertinent part, but all I've seen you do is run away and ignore it.

Bombs in the basement would be to simply make sure the resistance to the collapsed was weakened.

How would bombs an hour before collapse reduce resistance? It's not going to stop the third law interactions is it?

But of course you still haven't proved that fuel can run down elevator shafts and explode. You act like everything you say is fact, and it's up to us to prove otherwise. Prove to us first of all that fuel in open air pouring down shafts can explode.

It's liquid, it will flow under gravity. That solves the 'run down elevator shafts' bit.

Next, it's flammable, and has a low vaporisation temperature, meaning it is likely to form flammable vapour at regular temperatures, especially if impacting a surface.

If you need proof that a flammable liquid vapour can explode, then I suggest driving somewhere.

Explain how the fuel escaped the original fireball when the plane hit.

The fireball was limited by the available oxygen. As a result only a small fraction of the fuel could burn as fuel does not contain its own oxidiser. Once the local oxygen supply is exhausted then there can be no more burning.

Fuel exploding is just another lame OSer excuse, it's not backed by any proof or science. You've just convinced yourself it's fact in order to ignore the only other possibility.

'Not backed by any proof or science'. Other than hundreds of witness and firefighter accounts on practically every level of both towers.

I guess those pesky witnesses only matter when they're talking about explosions, not telling you what they were smelling and seeing to cause the explosions eh?

When are you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? Unless someone can finally do that the whole NIST report on the towers is not worth the ink it was printed with, let alone the paper.

The paper explains it. That's why I am laughing that you are so reluctant to read a few pages and portray that it's some huge long slog you have to go through. Unless the $30 charge is throwing you off?

This is catenary action, the excuse I keep hearing for the sagging truss hypothesis...
...
It doesn't work here, it would not work in the towers. If you can't see why then I can't help you anymore. Until you can explain the sagging trusses correctly I am done replying to you. Make a thread, prove yourself once and for all, show us that sagging trusses can pull in columns. Demonstrate it. But not in this thread as it is off-topic.

I already have, in detail. You've refused to read the paper and ignored my posts. Deny Ignorance ANOK.