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: Al Dykes on 16 Oct 2009 11:26 In article <k4CdnT_Cw4n1R0jXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, AllYou! <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote: >In >news:90b1c15d-b326-47ff-8f7e-ebf8240e2636(a)i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com, >knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> On Oct 6, 1:08 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>> Innews:hag4m7$aig$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >>> >>>> Al Dykes wrote: >>> >>>>> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. >>> >>>> So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? >>> >>> The videos don't show your fantasy of what actually happened. >>> They show what actually happened. > >I'll answer all of the following questions, but you won't even >answer them wrt to how all of that could happen with thermite. > > >> So how does the debrise from the "falling" building shoot up, >> out, and throw steel beams 600 feet away? > >The steel beams never shot that far away, but as to the debris, >kinetic energy from the falling buildings. > >> Why is the dust exploding upward and outward? > >Same > >> Is that how debrise "falls with gravity?" > >Sure, if the debris like pulverized sheet rock, and paper, and other >stuff like that is imparted with the energy expended by a falling >building. > >> Why are there no "pancakes?" > >Why should there be? > >> Where are the estimated 3000 file cabinets? > >In the ground. > >> Why didn't all the paper burn in the "inferno?" > >Lots of it did, and lots of it flew out in the debris cloud. > >> Why does the dusted building look like a mushroom cloud? > >What kind of mushroom? > >> Who named it "ground zero?" > >Me. > >> Hiding in plain sight? > >Who? > >> How is it that near every beam was left in a nice portable size >> of 30-60 feet to haul away? > >It was cut by the clean up crew. > >> Why wasn't there sections of the building hundreds of feet long >> from a building near a 1/4 mile tall? > >Should there be? > >> How did 47 core columns tied together with cross members turn >> into "pick-up sticks?" > >They didn't. > >> How did all those welds and bolts fail at once? > >Define 'all'. The k00k has an interesting and unique definition of "at once". -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 16 Oct 2009 11:35 In article <hb5243$i4b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >AllYou! wrote: > >> Here's the simple question..... > >> What is your supportable theory as to the technology (e.g., >> thermite, nukes, volcanoes, etc..) which brought down the WTC >> buildings? > > There is solid irrefutable proof that thermite was used >to destroy the towers and WTC7. How else do you explain >the molten metal that flowed like lava, the iron rich >microshperes, and the unreacted nanothermite? Nobody claims to have found "unreacted nanothermite" Iron microspheres are everywhere. There are no first-hand eyewitness reports of molten steel on the pile at WTC. All the reports are second-hand. There is no physical evidence for molten steel on the pile. There is no science that would show how the temperatures needed to maintain molten steel were created and maintained for weeks. Given that there is no evidence and no science, we can dismiss the second-hand stories as hyperbole. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 16 Oct 2009 11:37 In article <hb71rd$aib$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hb5243$i4b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>> >>>> Here's the simple question..... >>>> What is your supportable theory as to the technology (e.g., >>>> thermite, nukes, volcanoes, etc..) which brought down the WTC >>>> buildings? >>> There is solid irrefutable proof that thermite was used >>> to destroy the towers and WTC7. >> >> The only evidence you've posted is that there was some substance >> which is not only found in thermite, but in virtually thousands and >> thousands of other substances that are readily available, that >> someone said that they collected from some place in NY some time >> after 9/11. That's all you've ever shown. >> >>> How else do you explain >>> the molten metal that flowed like lava, >> >> Lead, aluminum, copper, and any other substances that could look >> 'like' lava as much as metal does. > > So, you "think" the structural steel in the towers and WTC7 >was made of lead, aluminum, and copper, eh? Good "thinking", nut >job... > >>> the iron rich >>> microshperes, and the unreacted nanothermite? > >> There are nothing but wild claims that any such spheres were found >> near the WTC, > > More nut job lies and ignorance. Read and learn, nut job. > >Press Release: > > http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html > Nowhere in that page does it say "we found unreacted nanothermite". -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 16 Oct 2009 11:38 In article <hb7dt7$ps$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >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. No fireman says "I saw" or anything like it. There are no first-hand eyewitness reports of molten steel on the pile at WTC. All the reports are second-hand. There is no physical evidence for molten steel on the pile. There is no science that would show how the temperatures needed to maintain molten steel were created and maintained for weeks. Given that there is no evidence and no science, we can dismiss the second-hand stories as hyperbole. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 16 Oct 2009 11:41
In article <e6014f26-c15f-4619-86d0-4dec5490c574(a)b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 15, 1:09=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 15, 10:58=A0am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> > =A0 A thermite reaction involves far more that simply heating steel, >> > nut job. >> >> A thermite reaction involves GRAVITY, nut job, > >So? >Thermite reactions can be directed. >You can even make the "shaping device" out of thermite. >So, you have "nothing" left after the burn except micron sized "iron" >particle. >The USGS found level of this far above any expectation. > >>A thermite reaction >> involves intense light > >So? >We saw molten "metal" near white hot streaming out of the S Tower? >How could we see anything in the core, through the walls? >It was smoke engulfed, covered with "dry wall," dark windows, and >outer building. >But, why don't WE SEE the fire department's infra-red video? > >>and thick smoke, > >Well, said. >Ever heard of a "smoke screen?" >Of course you have. It's you middle name. >Why is there sooooo much smoke as the collapse begins, continues, and >spreads like "a volcano" across Manhatten? > >>nut job. >> >Spook. > >> There was no thermite. >> >Again? >What possible motive could Jones et al have for spreading "lies" in >order to lose their jobs, careers, and good name? >What are all the "iron" particles that resemble thermite doing in WTC >dust. Jones had already lost his job wjen he invented thermite. He's selling DVDs for a living, now. Jones has never published the *complete* analysis of what his sample contains or had an independent lab publish an independent analysis. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |