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: knews4u2chew on 21 Sep 2009 16:31 On Sep 21, 12:29 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791085(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > >> In article > >> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, > > >> AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >>> In > >>>news:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > >>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern > >>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > >>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > >>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > >>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > >>>> Doesn't matter. > >>>> "Multiple jet hits." > > >>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > >>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed > >>> to be insulated. > > >> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures > >> expert > >> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no > >> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built > >> to > >> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all > >> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were > >> unique in > >> the minimal fireproofing. > > >> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud[Page 310, Report From Ground > >> Zero] > > >> Who is Vincent Dunn? > >>http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn > > > And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?" > > Can you dispute the report? The report ignores evidence "it didn't look for." Can you dispute the calculation? http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
From: Al Dykes on 21 Sep 2009 16:33 In article <022011d6-3a06-4ab3-954b-1da30f897a78(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sep 21, 12:29=A0pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791085(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >> >> >> > On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> >> In article >> >> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, >> >> >> AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> >>> In >> >>>news:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >> >>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >> >>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >> >>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >> >>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach >> >>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled >> >>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. >> >> >>>> Doesn't matter. >> >>>> "Multiple jet hits." >> >> >>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They >> >>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed >> >>> to be insulated. >> >> >> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures >> >> expert >> >> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no >> >> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built >> >> to >> >> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all >> >> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were >> >> unique in >> >> the minimal fireproofing. >> >> >> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud[Page 310, Report From Ground >> >> Zero] >> >> >> Who is Vincent Dunn? >> >>http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn >> >> > And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?" >> >> Can you dispute the report? > >The report ignores evidence "it didn't look for." > >Can you dispute the calculation? >http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm There is no link to the source of the math on that page. I call cherry-picked bullshit. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Iarnrod on 21 Sep 2009 17:18 On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > > Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > >> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 > > >> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument > > >> approach to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting > > >> the building, not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners > > >> slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > > > Doesn't matter. > > > "Multiple jet hits." > > > Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > > fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed to be > > insulated. > > REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes crashing > into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? You don't really have to work very hard at being stupid, do you, poser.
From: Iarnrod on 21 Sep 2009 17:22 On Sep 21, 2:31 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 21, 12:29 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > > > > Innews:ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791085(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > > On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > > >> In article > > >> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, > > > >> AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > >>> In > > >>>news:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > > >>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > >>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern > > >>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > > >>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > > >>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > > >>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > > >>>> Doesn't matter. > > >>>> "Multiple jet hits." > > > >>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > > >>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed > > >>> to be insulated. > > > >> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures > > >> expert > > >> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no > > >> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built > > >> to > > >> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all > > >> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were > > >> unique in > > >> the minimal fireproofing. > > > >> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud[Page 310, Report From Ground > > >> Zero] > > > >> Who is Vincent Dunn? > > >>http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn > > > > And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?" > > > Can you dispute the report? > > The report ignores evidence "it didn't look for." No, it does not. And you saying that doesn't make it so. > Can you dispute the calculation?http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm Why? It's irrelevant. It was not a jet-fuel fire. The jet fuel burned off quickly. But it ignited massive office fires, with multiple combustibles. Troofers excel at debunking red herrings.
From: AllYou! on 21 Sep 2009 17:53
In news:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 >>>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach >>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled >>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. >> >>> Doesn't matter. >>> "Multiple jet hits." >> >> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They >> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed >> to be insulated. > > REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes > crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? It's no wonder you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple English! The designer was talking about how the towers were designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever else might result from a plane crash. |