9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
Next: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 12:11 "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message news:hoajqk$hve$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > AllYou! wrote: > >> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK >> brethren >> do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. > >> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into >> the >> WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was >> significantly damaged. >> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were >> undamaged >> by the plane crash. >> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were >> undamaged >> by the plane crash. > >> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral >> floor >> trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the >> support >> columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in >> the >> videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling >> downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). > > That obviously did not happen, and even it had, it wouldn't > explain > the sudden and total disintegration of the massive central core > structures. Total disintegration? LOL! Define what you mean by that. This should be good.
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 12:15 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba8c334$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > news:WridnRCHqs-dITXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >> message news:4ba8b62b$0$32441$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >>> I am very comfortable with the subject of dynamics, and it is >>> very clear that you know nothing at all about the subject. >> >> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK >> brethren >> do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. >> >> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into >> the >> WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was >> significantly damaged. >> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were >> undamaged >> by the plane crash. >> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were >> undamaged >> by the plane crash. >> >> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral >> floor >> trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the >> support >> columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in >> the >> videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling >> downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). >> >> Obviously, as had been proven over decades, every part of the >> support structure of that tower was capable of supporting the >> weight >> of everything above it. So when that upper block (A) crashed >> into >> the remaining support structure (C), some force greater that the >> weight of (A) was exerted upon (C) so as to cause it to fail >> structurally. > > All true. Then you've proven yourself to be a KOOK for having consistently denied that there was ever any such an "interaction" between the upper block, and the lower support structure. You've always contended that this "interaction" involved only the weight of the upper block, and the reaction of the lower support structure to it.
From: Henry on 23 Mar 2010 14:53 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK >>> brethren do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. >>> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into >>> the WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >>> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which >>> was significantly damaged. >>> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were >>> undamaged by the plane crash. >>> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were >>> undamaged by the plane crash. >>> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral >>> floor trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on >>> the support columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as >>> can be seen in the videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) >>> to begin falling downward toward the largely undamaged >>> structure (C). >> That obviously did not happen, > Even your whacko report authors say it did. Those are your whackos, and everything they (and you) say has been proved to contradict the evidence, the expert reseach, and the principles of physics. > Even they say that the > upper block collided with the lower support structure. Are they > wrong? You are wrong when you say that some trusses sagged and that's what caused the buildings to suddenly explode and disitnegrate, nut job. >> and even it had, it wouldn't >> explain the sudden and total disintegration of the massive >> central core structures. > LOL! then what was all that junk that it took months to clear away > from the holes? What does that have to do with your moronic claim that a few sagging floor trusses caused the entire buidling to suddenly explode and disintegrate as well as cause steel to melt, nut job? > Is that you definition of disintegration? That's proof of demolition. >> Twin Towers: >> The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of >> the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force >> of gravity alone. > Of course it can. Says some nut job who "thinks" there's no such thing as gravitational potential energy... <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 23 Mar 2010 14:55 Remy McSwain wrote: > "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message > news:hoajqk$hve$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... >> AllYou! wrote: >> >>> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK >>> brethren >>> do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. >>> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into >>> the >>> WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >>> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was >>> significantly damaged. >>> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were >>> undamaged >>> by the plane crash. >>> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were >>> undamaged >>> by the plane crash. >>> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral >>> floor >>> trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the >>> support >>> columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in >>> the >>> videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling >>> downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). >> That obviously did not happen, and even it had, it wouldn't >> explain >> the sudden and total disintegration of the massive central core >> structures. > Total disintegration? LOL! Define what you mean by that. This > should be good. You have a computer. Find a dictionary reference and enter the word "disintegrate". If you can't remember how to spell it, use copy and paste. -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Peter Webb on 23 Mar 2010 20:18
"AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message news:CJOdndK3x7ZdUzXWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > Responding to Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > In news:4ba8c334$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > > You really are a piece of work. All of this time, you've been completely > unwilling to admit that you were completely wrong to agree with the dolts > who said that the only two relevant forces at play during the crash of the > upper block into the lower support structure were the weight of the upper > block, and the reaction of the lower support structure on it, and now that > you've finally been boxed into having to admit that this was wrong, Huh? >you continue your obfuscation of the truth by trying to claim that you knew >it all along, and that somehow, it is me who learned something or other. > > You were just as wrong about this as you were to think that you could show > whether or not the lower support structure provided any resistance to the > fall of the upper block by performing an analysis, the very premise of > which is that it did not. > > You're a horribly confused person who says whatever he has to say to > obfuscate from having to admit that you know almost nothing about physics. > You think you do, but you most certainly do not, and all of your smoke and > mirrors attempts to hide this very basic fact proves it. > > Huh? |