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 20 Oct 2009 12:19 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hbi2af$m3b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>>>> Lacing every single comment with very many insults and >>>>> name-calling is a very angry trait, and anger is born of fear. >>>> No it isn't, any more than it is when I tell you that >>>> you're barely literate and extremely simple minded. I'm >>>> just being honest, nut job. ;-) >>> Yes, it is. >> And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" >> in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being >> you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> >> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >> described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >> days after the attacks." >> "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker >> would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam >> would be dripping molten steel". > That's right Here's your quote, nut job: "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? Still can't find the words "molten steel" in those quotes, eh, nut job? Yes, you are quite clearly completely insane. Thanks for proving my point so convincingly. <vbg> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 20 Oct 2009 12:21 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hb9nub$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. > How do they know that it was metal at all Since it was dripping from super heated brightly glowing steel beams, what else do you "think" it could have been, nut job? Molten subterranean aliens? Are you insane? Rhetorical, by the way - look it up... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 20 Oct 2009 12:22 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 20 Oct 2009 12:22 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: Al Dykes on 20 Oct 2009 12:28
In article <hbknue$353$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hbi2af$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 > > Here's your quote, nut job: > > "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > > Still can't find the words "molten steel" in those quotes, >eh, nut job? Yes, you are quite clearly completely insane. >Thanks for proving my point so convincingly. <vbg> > > What we can't find in those quotes is "I saw" or anythng close. 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 |