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: AllYou! on 16 Oct 2009 06:59 In news:d31786af-a26a-45f4-9e63-9bb9dfe93d3c(a)b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 15, 2:18 pm, Iarnrod The Spook <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I wrote: >>> What possible motive could Jones et al have for spreading >>> "lies" in order to lose their jobs, careers, and good name? > > The Spook wrote: >> They�re just wrong but think they�re right. > > But you've proven nothing by waving your arms saying it. > You've proven nothing except your ability to lie and arm wave. > >> Why is that? > > Because buildings don't collapse into dust at near freefall > speed in near perfect symmetry from fires. We finally agree on something. What you describe above has never, ever happened.
From: AllYou! on 16 Oct 2009 07:18 In news:8f720bd4-6174-4784-86d1-b6c6c6c73768(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > No you just say "no" and provide no evidence. All of it has already been provided to you. But when someone clams that they know, for a fact, that beams weighing thousands of tons (which would make them thousands of feet long) were hurled 600 feet away, then no evidence will ever satisfy them. When someone claims to have 'hard evidence' of thermite at the site when all they have is that one person said that they found one of many substances that is not only found in thermite, but is also found in virtually thousands of other compounds, and which was only claimed to have been contained in a sample which one other person says that they collected somewhere in NY, then they obviously have no clue as to what 'hard evidence' might be. When someone claims that buildings fell at free-fall speed, despite being shown the math and the science as to how the conclusion as to how the buildings fell perfectly matches the results we seeing the video, then they will never accept any evidence of anything. When that same person has tow different standards as to what qualifies as hard evidence, one for themselves, which has holes big enough to drive a truck through, and another which they can simply reject without support, then there is no evidence that will ever satisfy them. They buildings, as a whole, did not explode. If they did, then that would negate your own claim that they exhibited all the characteristics of controlled demolitions. All the concrete in the buildings was not pulverized. Most of the sheet rock, and other junk, probably was, but not the concrete and other hard materials. There were no beams weighing thousands of tons that ever existed. There are only anecdotal claims of molten stuff. People, who can't possibly know better, might've seen some molten stuff, related it back to TV clips that they saw of other molten stuff (i.e., steel), and so called it steel, but there is no 'hard evidence' that anyone at the WTC site ever saw any molten steel. EVER. Not one experiment, ever, that in any way mimics the actual conditions at the WTC, has ever been performed to support any of the theories (e.g., how thermite can cut horizontally through beams which are think enough to weigh hundreds and hundreds of pounds per foot) that you've offered. In short, you don't care about evidence. You discard 'hard evidence' and science, and math, when it doesn't suit your delusions, and you adopt wild claims and arm waving as 'hard evidence' when it suits you. You're just a nut in search of attention.
From: Henry on 16 Oct 2009 08:10 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> 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? One step at a time for you, nut job. You said that no one I quoted mentioned molten steel, and that by claiming they did, I was lying. Do you now see you were dead wrong again and that you're a lying, insane nut job? >> 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? One step at a time for you, nut job. You said that no one quoted mentioned molten steel, and that by claiming they did, I was lying. Do you now see you were dead wrong again and that you're a lying, insane nut job? >> 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. Did you find the words "molten steel", ya silly, psychotic, deluded, lying nut job? If not, is there anyone nearby who is sane and literate that could help you find it, nut job? <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 16 Oct 2009 08:10 AllYou! wrote: > 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? I never made that claim, nut job. You sure do lie a lot. > As to your claim, prove that it's been proven, because no other > building has been damaged that severly, and had to withstand > fires for that long. Ever. You're either *completely* ignorant of the facts or deliberately lying. Either way, thanks, because you're making a complete joke of yourself and your insane conspiracy theory. Even NIST has been forced to admit that structural damage from the tower demolitions played no significant role in WTC7's "collapse". As always, here's hard proof of your ignorance, lies, and insanty. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html "Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7." And of course, many high rise buildings have suffered fires of far greater size, intensity, and duration than the minor, oxygen starved office fires in WTC7 without collapsing. Google One Meridian Plaza yourself. Never mind, you're far to helpless and stupid - I'll do that for you too, nut job. http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html "A fire on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, was reported to the Philadelphia Fire Department on February 23, 1991 at approximately 2040 hours and burned for more than 19 hours. The fire caused three firefighter fatalities and injuries to 24 firefighters. The 12-alarms brought 51 engine companies, 15 ladder companies, 11 specialized units, and over 300 firefighters to the scene. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building.." Notice that the Meridian Plaza inferno raged for "more than 19 hours", nut job. WTC7 caught fire around 10:00 and was demolished at 5:20. How many hours is that, nut job? Never mind, I'll figure that out for you too. I doubt you can do math, either. 10:00AM to 5:20PM is 7 hours and 20 minutes, nut job. What's longer, 19 hours or 7 hours and 20 minutes, nut job? Is there someone nearby with a working mind who you could ask? Your lies and idiocy are getting so blatant and extreme that at this point there's no doubt that you're either mentally ill, or you're deliberately trying to make followers of the official cartoon conspiracy theory seem even more clueless, deluded, and stupid than usual - which is no easy feat. It doesn't really matter which is the case, but I'd like to thank you for helping 9-11 Truth advocates prove their case and expose Bush parrots as deluded, ignorant, and utterly clueless nut jobs. Well done, nut job... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 16 Oct 2009 08:11
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. > 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 because it was dripping off steel beams, but technically, it was molten metal due to the chemical reaction of the thermite. > It's the same kind of circular logic in which you continually > engage, and which is not that different than what a dog uses to > cause it to chase its own tail. > >>>> 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. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |