₦airaland Forum

Does that make love imperfect? yes, the downs do.

Love betrays my trust

Love keeps me going

Love hurts

Love Stinks

Love,
What do you have to say about love
Begin:






Love makes me hate

the day I mentioned "nollywood" to my friends I was in deep regret. The way they poked fun at that term pushed me into a corner.

I'll tell you something that Nigeria clearly teaches you that you can take for granted here.

The ability to value the littler things in life. It exposes you to top-grade proverty, unorthodox lifestyle, discipline, and etc,
Smaller chores like washing clothes with your hands, hanging clothes in your backyard, sweeping the environment, living without electricity, in short it keeps you on your toes and makes you realize that life waits for no one.

you don't envy them? why not? you get to have sex, join gangs, smoke weed, play football, and even party every weekend, all while learning.

My sister, i was about to post a stinker at the poster but your english has shut my mouth. Haba, we really need to improve our schools curriculum.

Lol Aishatu I love you ATM. your post just made my Fucking day.
It made me laugh hard, something I hadn't done in a while.

2dye4, you'll understand when your mind gets even more rounded that love makes you do things that you would otherwise not have done.
love can scatter your brain, push you through an emotional roller coaster, make you hurt the people you care about. never get the impression that love should only be sweet, people give love(separate that from God's love), they are not perfect - love cannot be perfect.

i no go fit marry woman wey no sabi cook abeg. i no wan starve, my pikins no wan starve.

I think idiots are slowly but surely losing the purpose of this thread. Warn yourselves o.

It is not an issue of your ability to raise your child, it is a matter of what you value most as a parent. OR what you feel is right for your children.

https://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f110/sfboss/funny%20stuff/applicationforaman.jpg
Photobucket will probably take this down for leeching

I have urged you to provide the answers to those questions if you feel they convince fellow readers that your reasoning is absolute.

If you can't tell how a structure gets its integrity, how then can you understand how it collapses? The problem is that I have provided these answers over and over again but it seems you either don't get it or you are not even reading the things I have written.

Here is an excerpt from http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf. You might want to read up and undedrstand some mathematical analysis of what happened on 911.

I have advised you to provide a more detailed sketch, or design, of the WTC that gives a verifiable and thorough account of the strength of the building's general structure.   A simple sketch is only a an attempt to provide undue support for your stance.

To summarize, you're saying the source of the strength of the world trade center is due 100% to the steel? everything else is dismissable, because that's what i'm getting from your response, and I certainly cannot comprehend how you deduced that myth.

This is absolutely untrue. Not only do you find chunks of concrete slabs, there are sections of steel columns that were left intact. Is it the concrete dusts that they saw that caused them to come to that conclusion? As I said before, your sources have not shown any schorlarship in their submissions. I told you before to think about the role of "pressure" in the scene you witnessed during the collapse. What did you come up with?

What is so untrue about this
https://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
 

This is very simple. There are several videos on youtube, please show us a few that proves right this statement. It appears you are so keen to accept anything at face value as long as they align with your position.

[img]http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg[/img]
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/05/08/the_disappearing_south_tower_1.jpg
 

Steel evaporate? Who is the olodo that made that statement? Why are you spreading someone else's ignorance on the www? That aside, does explosives cause steel to evaporate? I have said before that the more these folks come up with conspiracies, the more they begin to sound ludicrous. Now we are hearing of steel evaporating. What did it evaporate into? What is the gas called? Now you are cracking me up

What is so surprising about steel evaporating, especially when the temperature is breathtakingly intense?  It is possible that the steel on the floor of impact was able to evaporate due to the scorching hotness it was subjected to aka heat generated from plane impact plus hint *explosions*
Is the government's conspiracy superior to the conspiracy of others? why?
 

My question is this: Is molten metal the by-product of dynamite and steel?

Is it the by-product of thermite?

Possibly. Beside the fact that sections of the building could be falling and causing the noise, please show us from all the footages, where any bright light (a necessary accompanament to explosions) seen. While you are busy looking for that footage, kindly check out youtube again and see that flashes of light alsways accompany detonation.

lol this killed the whole thing, i mean you just terribly killed it.
I must ask if you're refusing to consider other accounts for fear that they could be right?
Is this the only method you can implore to substantiate eyewitness accounts?  One is able to differentiate noise of explosions from noise of collapse.
could you differentiate between the sound of a gun and the sound of a collapsing building? i'm sure you could.

1. How does a steel column come about its strength?
2. What is a steel column's weakest structural property?
3. Looking at the sketch I provided earlier, what do you consider the weakest link of the tower?
4. When the floors are falling? What structural element directly resists the forces?

Of what important factor do these questions serve.
The comma is not about the strength of the building, or buildings, the problems are about the rate of collapse, the intensity of the collapse, the obliteration of the numerous amount of concrete into flour, eyewitness accounts, etc,
The strength of the wtc was never under attack until government conspiracists were able to denominate that it is their only reasonable option of explaining the collapse of the building.
your sketch is very simple, it doesn't explain the provocative structure of the WTC. Inquire a more-detailed sketch and we'll be able to see that the building is indeed built to last.
We do not have to suddenly begin scrutinizing the capability of the building to withstand disaster. It was well established long before WTC occured that the WTC was built to combat heavy impact.

Why now when such disaster occurs do we have to begin attacking the structural integrity of the building?
Did WTC 7 commit suicide because its twin brothers died?
If we can consider the possiblity that WTC 7 was imploded, why couldn't the same be said about the twin towers.

If you feel the answers to the questions you posed would provide convincing answers into the wtc debacle go ahead and provide those answer.

you're still here rapping dust with these things.
I already showed them the many faults inside the debauchery of a theory they worship, yet they're here sperming over christianity, na wa o.

anti temi nikan ni too to, e ma binu. hope all is well with you
, /, /

lol na wa for you o you this thing.

prior to answering these questions

provide the evidence that suggests that the WTC will only be supported by clips once the steel gives in.
also remember that we're not done tackling the issue of the steel which by your accounts was still operating under 50% strength.

also keep in mind that the engineers & scientists responsible for the development of the world trade center have said the building was constructed to withstand heavy damage.

Must be now recycle their reports in order to justify the fall of the building?

loot - tool
loots -stool

Lol yes, you are right. The government is probably the conspiracist. They're so quick to point fingers when under scrutiny. So yes that's a good question, why ship the debris to Asia, how did the 2.3 trillion vamoose.

NIST Scrutinized:
According to NIST a building which supported its own weight for 30 years can’t resist the momentum from the collapse even a little. NIST claims a small portion of the building is enough to result in crushing the rest the building at free fall speed—as if the bottom portion of the building provided no more resistance than the air in the sky. This is called creating your own “scientific reality.”[65] You can’t ignore fundamental laws of physics simply because they are inconvenient to your theory! Normally, (although not in Bush science) you are supposed to abandon your theory when it is this easily disproved.

This is a post on John skilling - Head Structural Engineer for the WTC.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Let us analyze the strength and design of the building.
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, , The building structure would still be there. 3

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

Now, if you may, address these so-called conspiracies.

* WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
---------since you said you can't explain what happened with WTC 7, you don't have to address it--------------------

* With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

* Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says. (Even I saw pictures of these, I was going to post them earlier till I lost the page).

* Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel - and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot.[b] Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says. (You said the steel lost its strength, but how do you explain the invisibility of the steel as the building vanished).

* Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

* [b]Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says. (are those people just hallucinating)

www.rense.com/general68/advice.htm+violation+of+laws+of+physics+wtc&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
I hope you won't dimiss these questions.

You're still not seeing it. clips or not a building designed with steel of that much strength intact does not dismantle effortlessly. Factor in the 50% strength you advocate for and it sounds even more absurd.

No steel-frame building pre/post 911 has ever collapsed that effortlessly due to fire.
i still conclude that only explosives can take out the building that forcefully and easily.

say for example you've done things in the past to cheat your previous lovers, or to hurt them and deceive them.

Do you believe karma comes back to bite you in the Ass?

afi mugun naa. won ti f'agbari e nudi, abi ori p'ori e o pe.

nkan to wi tele yen fi han wipe ilakaye e tin sonu die die.

bawo ni, se daa daa la rii yin ba loni.

Nigeria, leaves me speechless.

Thanks for sharing. I'll have you know 99.8% of us on this site for one don't care where you choose to raise your child. Nigerians in Nigeria could give 2 licks where you choose to raise your child.

Number one, no one said the heat was enough to melt the steel, rather, it was enough to reduce its strength to about 50%. The plane's structural impact was clearly seen by millions and recorded on live TV when it breached the outer perimeter of the building. Once the outer perimeter is breached, there is nothing inside to stop its velocity until it reaches the steel core. Did the plane you see disintegrate on impact? Why don't you query these so-called 'experts' yourself?

Even then, reduction of the steel's strength by 50 percent still leaves it to operate at 50% power, how did that 50% left only offer a 2-second deviation from idealness? What about the escaping heat, why didn't that lower the 2-second deviation even more?
How do you explain the accounts of numerous eyewitnesses who severally mentioned explosions and hearing loud bangs (I believe I provided a video of firefighters saying these things too).

Quote

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints - they didn't splatter
This question is the singular reason why I query the expertise of these so-called experts. Do you bother to ask them if there was any lateral force that could cause the building to tip over? Did they explain to you that the combined wind load provides greater lateral force than the airplane? And did they inform you that the building is about 95% air? Did they explain to you where else a 500,000 ton structure with that much inertia can fall other than straight down? Please think on these things and don't allow those with an agenda to cloud your ability to reason.

How about the lateral force from the impact of the ensuing plane that was travelling horizontally?
I'm sure it didn't come diving nose-down into the building.
Even if it is possible that it would fall into itself, how come it did so under breath-taking quickness. After that, how do you explain the images that looked like xplosions?
such as this: https://wtc7.batcave.net/6289-2.jpg

[Quote]
That I have no answer to. However, can you kindly tell us how many wayward planes have ever being accosted by military jets prior to 911?[/quote]There must have been a few, but I'd rather not delve into that now.
The military base had opportunities to know that, and they should have realized that special units should be on alert.
There was at least a 15 minute gap before tower 2 was hit if memory serves me correctly.