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 19 Oct 2009 11:58 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> In news:hb9s4s$7r9$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>> Why so much anger? >>>> You're mistaking mild amusement for anger, nut job. >>> Lacing every single comment with very many insults and >>> name-calling is a very angry trait, and anger is born of fear. >> No it isn't, any more than it is when I tell you that >> you're barely literate and extremely simple minded. I'm >> just being honest, nut job. ;-) > Yes, it is. And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks." "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel". -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 19 Oct 2009 11:58 In news:hbhtp4$e1b$6(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> 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. So you disagree with your whacko friend here? >> 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. Prove it.
From: Henry on 19 Oct 2009 12:02 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >> I said the eyewitnesses used the words "molten steel". > > And I asked you to show No, you said they all used the words molten metal, nut job. You said my claim that they said "molten steel" was a lie, nut job. Here'ws your quote: "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that?" Why do you lie so often, nut job? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look it up... <chuckle> >>>> 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 >> 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? You're mistaking mild amusement for anger, nut job. Were you able to find the words "molten steel" in the quotes yet, nut job? You said all the quotes referred to molten metal, and that I was lying when I said some referred to molten steel. You were lying and being very stupid and illiterate again, nut job. > Why so afraid? Your ignorance, stupidity, illiteracy, and lies are amusing and they prove my point, nut job. That's not frightening - it's comforting and amusing. Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? You said they weren't used. They are. Can you see them, nut job? > You are the one who said it, not me. I said the eyewitnesses used the words "molten steel". They did. It's in the quotes. Did you find the words "molten steel" in the quotes yet, nut job? You lied again, nut job. >>>> "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"." -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 19 Oct 2009 12:03 In news:hbi2af$m3b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >>>> Lacing every single comment with very many insults and >>>> name-calling is a very angry trait, and anger is born of fear. > >>> No it isn't, any more than it is when I tell you that >>> you're barely literate and extremely simple minded. I'm >>> just being honest, nut job. ;-) > > >> Yes, it is. > > And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" > in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being > you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> > > "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, > described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 > days after the attacks." > > "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker > would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam > would be dripping molten steel". That's right, there are no quotes of anyone who ever said "I saw molten steel", much less was it ever said by anyone who would know the difference between molten stuff, and molten steel.
From: AllYou! on 19 Oct 2009 12:04
In news:hbi2ib$m3b$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: > >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: > >>> I said the eyewitnesses used the words "molten steel". >> >> And I asked you to show > > No, Yes. |