911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: Henry on 15 Oct 2009 11:50 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hb7dt7$ps$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>>>> Actually, I'm relying on photo and eyewitness evidence, >>>>>> Evidence of molten metal is well documented. >>>>> But not molten steel. >>>> Because thermite reactions produce molten metal. >>> If thermite interacts with steel, it can produce molten steel. >> Wrong nut job. Learn how to read and think. > So if thermite reacts with steel, it results in some other kind > of pools of molten metal? Correct, nut job. The thermite reaction changes the chemical properties of the steel, nut job. Your ignorance seems to have no limits. >>> There is no evidence that whatever people think they saw which >>> might look like molten metal was, in fact, molten steel. >> They called it molten steel > Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they called > it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? You're lying and being very stupid and illiterate again, nut job. Here are two of the quotes that you failed to comprehend because you're barely literate and you're insane. "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks." Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? <chuckle> "A witness said �In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel". Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? If not, is there anyone nearby who is sane and literate that could help you find it, nut job? <chuckle> >> because it was dripping off >> steel beams, but technically, it was molten metal due to >> the chemical reaction of the thermite. > That doesn't makes sense even on its face. It doesn't make sense to you because you're ignorant and mentally ill. I makes perfect sense to anyone who understands a thermite reaction, nut job. >>>>>> Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten >>>>>> metal "flowing like lava - like a "foundry" >>>>> Lava flows in foundries? >>>> No one has said that but you, nut job. Learn how to read and >>>> think, nut job. >>> You did. You just said that it looked like flowing lava like a >>> foundry. >> Wrong nut job. I quoted FDNY members who compared it to >> lava and a foundry. No one but you said that lava flows >> in a foundry, nut job. You are quite clearly insane. > Actually, you did. Coming from someone who "thinks" that no building ever burned longer than WTC7, who can't find the words "molten steel" when they're printed right in front of his mug, and the quotes proving that you're lying are directly above, we can easily dismiss that as another one of your many insane kook rants. Thanks for the laughs, nut job... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 15 Oct 2009 11:51 In news:hb7eh8$179$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: >> On Oct 15, 7:49 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > >>> Evidence of molten metal is well documented. http://everything2.com/title/More+9%252F11+Conspiracy+Theories Sorry, but how does a firefighter know the difference between molten steel, and other molten metals like molten lead, or even other molten stuff? Your hard evidence is that a firefighter identified some molten stuff as definitively being steel? How so?
From: AllYou! on 15 Oct 2009 11:58 In news:hb7gbl$5ah$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hb7dt7$ps$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>>>> Actually, I'm relying on photo and eyewitness evidence, >>>>>>> Evidence of molten metal is well documented. > >>>>>> But not molten steel. > >>>>> Because thermite reactions produce molten metal. > >>>> If thermite interacts with steel, it can produce molten steel. > >>> Wrong nut job. Learn how to read and think. > >> So if thermite reacts with steel, it results in some other kind >> of pools of molten metal? > > Correct, nut job. The thermite reaction changes the chemical > properties of the steel, nut job. Your ignorance seems to have > no limits. Heating a metal can change its chemical properties, but not from steel to something some other metal like lead or aluminum or copper. So where's your evidemce that whatever molten stuff that someone claims to have seen is, or once was, steel? >>>> There is no evidence that whatever people think they saw which >>>> might look like molten metal was, in fact, molten steel. > >>> They called it molten steel > >> Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > > You're lying and being very stupid and illiterate again, nut > job. Here are two of the quotes that you failed to comprehend > because > you're barely literate and you're insane. > > "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, > described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 > days after the attacks." He was there? Prove it. > Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? > <chuckle> > "A witness said �In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker > would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam > would be dripping molten steel". How does that worker know the difference between molten steel, and molten metal other than steel? > Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? If > not, is there anyone nearby who is sane and literate that could > help you find it, nut job? <chuckle> Still exceeding your own definition of a whacko. >>> because it was dripping off >>> steel beams, but technically, it was molten metal due to >>> the chemical reaction of the thermite. > >> That doesn't makes sense even on its face. > > It doesn't make sense to you because you're ignorant and > mentally ill. I makes perfect sense to anyone who understands > a thermite reaction, nut job. LOL! Still exceeding your own definition of a whacko. Why did you snip the rest of the my post which explains WHY it is that your response makes no sense? It's got to be that you know that it's true. >>>>>>> Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten >>>>>>> metal "flowing like lava - like a "foundry" > >>>>>> Lava flows in foundries? > >>>>> No one has said that but you, nut job. Learn how to read and >>>>> think, nut job. > >>>> You did. You just said that it looked like flowing lava like >>>> a foundry. > >>> Wrong nut job. I quoted FDNY members who compared it to >>> lava and a foundry. No one but you said that lava flows >>> in a foundry, nut job. You are quite clearly insane. > >> Actually, you did. http://everything2.com/title/More+9%252F11+Conspiracy+Theories
From: Iarnrod on 15 Oct 2009 12:01 On Oct 15, 9:54 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > On Oct 15, 9:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> You're still not making any sense, nut job. > > I know that having been fired from your janitor job > > Just like you "know" that two planes hit WTC7, Ummm, Hankie the Fired Substance Abusing Janitor, no plane hit WTC7... WTC1 hit WTC7. > and that > a controlled demolition displays none of the > characteristics of a controlled demolition. <chuckle> You are delusionally lost, Hankie the Fired Janitor. WTC7's collapse possessed not one single characteristic unique to controlled demolition, and in fact its collapse from fire refutes controlled demolition since there were no controlled demolition explosives. Q.E.D. You cannot get around this plain fact. Controlled demolition is thoroughly proven to be physically impossible in these cases. Your cartoon magic gravity defying thermite isn't even capable of producing what was seen on 9/11, Hankie the Fired Janitor. It seems you got stupider during your forced "sabbatical" in substance abuse rehab after your firing. Did they do a lobotomy on you? <chuckle>
From: AllYou! on 15 Oct 2009 12:06
In news:hb7gjv$5m2$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: >> On Oct 15, 9:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> You're still not making any sense, nut job. > >> I know that having been fired from your janitor job > > Just like you "know" that two planes hit WTC7, and that > a controlled demolition displays none of the > characteristics of a controlled demolition. <chuckle> > What you "think" you "know" is easily proved to be at > odds with reality, nut job... <vbg> Just like you know that beams weighing thousands of tons each landed 600 feet from the WTC? A quick look at the pictures of the cross-sections of the beams shows that they can't possibly weight more than two or three hundred pounds per foot, but lets bump that all the way up to 500 pounds per foot. That means that one ton of beam would be four feet long. That means that for such a beam to weight even one thousand tons, it would have to be 4,000 feet long, and whereas you said that it weighed "thousandS" of tons, that would make it at least 8,000 feet long. Do I really need to type the rest? |