9-11 Truth makes HUGE stinking turd pile at Los Angeles Kook March
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Chapter 2 Pictures of the Atom Totality; postscript-- redshift resolved & have Big Bangers ever heard of resonance? #18; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: If elected, I promise: “ Change ! Hope ! Yes we can ! etc. ”
From: Iarnrod on 2 Jun 2010 20:08 On Jun 2, 7:42 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Darwin123 wrote: > > On Apr 12, 2:45 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> Schiffner wrote: > >>> On Apr 9, 9:58 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> so retard, if it took a ton of dynamite for this > >>>http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36387551/ns/sports-nfl/ashot made by > >>> subject matter experts...I wonder just how much of your magic powder > >>> it would have taken to drop the towers... > >> According to you, none at all, right, nutjob? According to your > >> obviously impossible and insane cartoon fairy tale, WTC7 dropped > >> at the rate of free fall with near perfect symmetry because of > >> nothing but random, minor, ordinary office fires. Why do you "think" > >> demolition contractors bother with explosives when you "know" that > >> all they need to do is start a couple of fires to achieve a picture > >> perfect demolition? > > The insulation on the steel beams was stripped by the airplanes > > after they crashed into the Towers. > > No insulation was stripped below the impact point, nor were there > any fires or damage below the impact point, and that's where the steel > was strongest and thickest, Not really. Hankie the Fired Janitor, explain to us why you seem to be "thinking" that insulation would have to be stripped and fires started in the lower floors in order to have them collapse under dynamic loading when a 30-story building is dropped on them? <chuckle> Were you born stupid or was it a goal in your life to become stupid? > yet somehow, it suddenly and symmetrically > lost all its strength allowing the lighter thinner upper block to > accelerate through 10s of thousands of tons of cold, undamaged > structural steel as though it was air. It's called dynamic loading and the only mystery here is why you "think" the collapse should have been stopped once initiated. It was impossible to stop it once the fire-weakened area shifted, as is plainly visible on ALL videos which also clearly show NO EXPLOSIVES going off. FACT. > Obviosuly, this is impossible > without demolition. Well, facts show otherwise. There was no demolition -- this is a proven fact not even subject to dispute -- yet it did indeed happen. > But we're discussing WTC7. No planes. Just minor ordinary office > fires followed by a free fall and symmetric drop. Nope. Wrong on all accounts. But it is no surprise that a fired janitor such as yourself would be so brain damaged by the cleaning chemicals you used as to believe such physically impossible claims. >This is also > physically impossible without demolition. As always, here's hard > proof. Nope. Entirely possible and in fact inevitable. You have no proof. Your claims have all been debunked and most shown to be physically impossible. > Please explain how WTC7 could have dropped at the rate of free fall Why should I explain something that did not occur?
From: Iarnrod on 2 Jun 2010 22:55 On Jun 2, 10:23 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jun 2, 7:18 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 7:36 pm, * US * wrote: > > > > On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:27:18 -0400, Henry <9-11tr...(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. > > > Indeed your lack of intelligence and by extrapolation EVERYONE ESLE > > WHO THINKS LIKE YOU. The tonnage both structual and non structural was > > sufficient to collapse the entire building. > > No it wasn't. Yes, knowsknothing. It was. You can't make "was" into "wasn't" just because your political beliefs dictate that the laws of physics must be violated.
From: Iarnrod on 2 Jun 2010 23:22 On Jun 2, 9:01 pm, * Hates US * wrote: > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ NAME ONE THING at that link that you "think" is true, nut job. You can't and you won't.
From: Iarnrod on 4 Jun 2010 00:23 On Jun 3, 5:37 am, * US * wrote: > "full peer review" > > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ Nope. All debunked physically impossible bullshit. Disproven years ago. No merit, violates laws of physics... IOW... WRONG!!
From: Iarnrod on 4 Jun 2010 08:15
On Jun 4, 5:07 am, * Hates US * foamed in impotent disproven kooker rage: > "full peer review" > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ Nope. All debunked physically impossible bullshit. Disproven years ago. No merit, violates laws of physics... IOW... WRONG!! |