Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: paulthomascpa on 16 Sep 2009 15:09

<knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote
> Why don't you read the article






I don't read comic books.








From: AllYou! on 17 Sep 2009 10:05
In
news:9e2bc15f-071f-43ff-8c7c-5e6e9b22f75f(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com,
knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused:

> You don't get off that easy.
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201

You've been down this road before, and it always leads to the very
same conclusion. The fact is that your scientific evidence is
nonsense, because your scientists are nonsense, and can't even
confirm that the samples thy tested ever even came from the WTC.
Some idiot "says" that she gathered some dust a couple of weeks
after 911 from somewhere in NYC, and yet, in your world, that
suffices as scientific evidence gathering.

You, and your fellow idiots, can't even concoct a single story that
holds together. You claim that there's evidence of a controlled
demolition using thermite, and yet, you ignore how thermite works on
steel. Moreover, you can't ever explain how an controlled
demolition could cause a building to fall as the WTC did by melting
the steel instead of by cutting through it.

And most of all, you've got no credible theory on how all those
explosives got there. It's take a monumental effort to place all of
those exactly where they've got to be in order to accomplish that
demolition, and that's if it was done while the building was being
erected. To do so after it was built would be virtually impossible,
and yet, not one person has ever claimed to be part of that effort.
Not one engineer, not one technician, not one laborer, not one of
anyone. None.

Wake up and smell the coffee. All you're doing is proving what a
fool you are.


From: knews4u2chew on 17 Sep 2009 12:55
On Sep 17, 8:44 am, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...(a)centurytel.net> wrote:
> The mere fact hat he and his fellow whack jobs have had to concoct so many
> explanations to fit their moronic scenarios should be enough for even a boob
> like "Knews" to realize how preposterous their beliefs are.
>
Meaningless smear.

> Even his latest, that the building was pre-prepared for demolition  when it
> was built defies any sense of logic. Any explosive material installed and
> left unattended for as long as they would have would have seen some natural
> deterioration so that, at least, some major portion of that material would
> become unstable enough that it would be impossible to predict just how they
> would effect the demolition when they were finally triggered.

Proof?

> That would be even more true in the case of a mini-nuke, which did not exist
> at the time the buildings were constructed.
>
And your assumption that it had to be built in is meaningless.

> But when someone begins with a conclusion, as does "knews," and tries to
> concoct an explanation to support that conclusion one has to expect
> preposterous stories that continually change.
>

You mean like "office fires" which NEVER in history cause a steel
framed building to collapse, caused three buildings to collapse in one
day?
The NIST report is a FRAUD that ignores evidence and standard crime
scene investigation protocal.
You can name call and smear all you want but the evidence will never
go away.
From: paulthomascpa on 17 Sep 2009 13:40

> You mean like "office fires" which NEVER in history
> cause a steel framed building to collapse,






Give it up chewy. Never in history has a 747 flew into a building and the
building stood.

There is plenty of proof that fire destroys the structural integrity of
steel and concrete. Add to that the weight of the floors above it and the
weight of the plane itself to deteriorating steel and concrete from the heat
of the fire, and it was bound to come down just like it did. Pancaking.
Look it up.






From: Michael Moroney on 17 Sep 2009 13:46
knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com writes:

>You mean like "office fires" which NEVER in history cause a steel
>framed building to collapse, caused three buildings to collapse in one
>day?

We have several incidents where a large fire burning below a steel-beam
highway bridge has caused it to collapse. Highway bridges are built
more substantially than the floor of an office tower, since they have to
deal with speeding overloaded 18-wheelers, yet they still collapsed.

Firefighters are fearful of a large fire in a building with a steel truss
roof, since it's easy for the trusses to fail and the roof to collapse.
The WTC towers were essentially towers with 110 of those truss "roofs".
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result