Prev: Spaces: Logic and illogic in SRT / GRT.
Next: Prof. Lindzen of MIT is a big deal for climate science
From: S'mee on 2 Jun 2010 13:07
On Jun 2, 9:33 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote:
> S'mee wrote:
> >  The simple fact is as the
> > upper floors collapsed onto the next floor the weight kept
> > accumulating causing more damage.
>
>   That's definitely very simple, but it's an impossible lie,
> not a fact. Fact is, there were no floors in the rubble, as
> they were pulverized into fine powder by the demolition. Also,
> your lie is an old one and has even been dumped by your ruling
> masters as it contradicts the evidence and violates the
> principles of physics. As always, here's proof.
>
>

Gee retard, you just agreed with me....you really are a special kind
of stupid, aren't you.
From: * US on 2 Jun 2010 13:23
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 07:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>...lack of intelligence and by extrapolation EVERYONE ESLE [sic]

You believe the Bush/Cheney lies about 9/11 because
you lack the critical thinking ability to question them.

>...The tonnage both structual and non structural was
>sufficient to collapse the entire building ...

Not so fast.

The structures below the floors didn't resist the collapse
even for an instant.

That's telling, even if you can't comprehend it.

>I suggest you shut up...

You hate Americans for their freedom of expression,
too, don't you.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:27:18 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote:

>* US * wrote:
>
>> http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
>
> That's some very clear and irrefutable logic and hard
>evidence. To believe that the upper portion of the towers
>(the lightest, thinnest, and weakest portion of the steel
>frame) could crush its way through the massive undamaged,
>much thicker, stronger, steel frame below it at all, let
>alone anything even close to free fall, is a form of insanity.
>Yet that's precisely what followers of the government's
>impossible cave man conspiracy theory believe. No wonder they
>*never* address the facts, expert research, and hard evidence.....

Indeed.
From: * US on 2 Jun 2010 23:01
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
From: * US on 3 Jun 2010 07:37
"full peer review"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/
From: * US on 4 Jun 2010 09:26
"full peer review"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The neocon pawn doesn't understand
even those two words.

The neocon pawn isn't qualified as a
"peer", obviously.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Spaces: Logic and illogic in SRT / GRT.
Next: Prof. Lindzen of MIT is a big deal for climate science