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 16 Oct 2009 08:12 Al Dykes wrote: > Gage speaks for 2-2/1 hours and says 100 stupid things. Can you quote and refute one of these "things" for us? Here's an example of how to quote something incredibly stupid. It was written by you. >> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight >> down onto its own footprint? > Yes. Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they did it? http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ I wonder if the other magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks are embarrassed by the level of your insanity yet? <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 16 Oct 2009 08:19 In news:hb9nqs$jb$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>> Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >>>> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > >>> You're lying and being very stupid and illiterate again, nut >>> job. Here are two of the quotes that you failed to comprehend >>> because you're barely literate and you're insane. > >>> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >>> described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >>> days after the attacks." > >> He was there? > > One step at a time for you, nut job. You said that no one I > quoted mentioned molten steel, and that by claiming they did, > I was lying. Do you now see you were dead wrong again and that > you're a lying, insane nut job? Why so much anger? Why so afraid? You are the one who said it, not me. I just used your words. Don't blame me that you were wrong. So was he there? >>> Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? >>> <chuckle> > >>> "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a >>> worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of >>> the beam would be dripping molten steel". > >> How does that worker know the difference between molten steel, >> and molten metal other than steel? > > One step at a time for you, nut job. OK, your refusal to back up your claims is noted.
From: AllYou! on 16 Oct 2009 08:21 In news:hb9nsc$jb$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hb7gjv$5m2$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> Iarnrod wrote: >>>> On Oct 15, 9:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>>> You're still not making any sense, nut job. > >>>> I know that having been fired from your janitor job > >>> Just like you "know" that two planes hit WTC7, and that >>> a controlled demolition displays none of the >>> characteristics of a controlled demolition. <chuckle> >>> What you "think" you "know" is easily proved to be at >>> odds with reality, nut job... <vbg> > >> Just like you know that beams weighing thousands of tons each >> landed 600 feet from the WTC? > > I never made that claim, nut job. You sure do lie a lot. You agreed with your little buddy here, and so you did.
From: AllYou! on 16 Oct 2009 08:31 In news:hb9nt1$jb$5(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 it produces gold? What does it produce if not 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 because it was dripping off > steel beams, but technically, it was molten metal due to > the chemical reaction of the thermite. So they were wrong to call it molten steel? If your claim of molten metal rests upon the fact that thermite was used to melt the steel, then surely, you're not then claiming that thermite was used *because* there was molten metal, are you? Is it really your position that the molten metal proves the thermite, and that the termite then proves the molten metal? >> 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. Ahhhhhhhhh. They compared what they saw at the WTC to the pictures they've seen of laval and steel at a foundry. So how do those comparisons prove that it was steel any more than it proves that it was lava? > No one but you said that lava flows > in a foundry, nut job. You are quite clearly insane. Actually, you did.
From: AllYou! on 16 Oct 2009 08:34
In news:hb9nub$jb$7(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: > >>>>> How else do you explain >>>>> the molten metal that flowed like lava, > >>>> Lead, aluminum, copper, and any other substances that could >>>> look 'like' lava as much as metal does. > >>> So, you "think" the structural steel in the towers and WTC7 >>> was made of lead, aluminum, and copper, eh? Good "thinking", >>> nut job... > >> You're using your conclusion that the molten metal was steel in >> order to prove that the steel was melted. The fact is that >> there's no evidence whatsoever that the molten stuff that >> someone said that they think they saw was steel at all. > > Actually, I'm relying on photo and eyewitness evidence, nut job. Those eye witnesses thought it looked as much like lava as it did metal. How do they know that it was metal at all, much less what kind of metal it was. Even you say that it wasn't steel, but some kind of metal transformed into something else by the thermite. So if they were wrong that it was steel, how do you know that it wasn't lead, or copper, or aluminum, or any other number of other soft metals, much less plastic? After all, they also said that it looked like lava. |