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: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 08:47 In news:hbmuvq$6qv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Al Dykes wrote: >> What we can't find in those quotes is > > > Can you find the words "molten steel" You can't find the words "I saw molten steel", much less anyone who said those words who would know the difference between molten steel, or molten stuff of almost any kind. All you have are second hand claims of someone saying that they know of someone who said something or other about molten stuff dripping from other stuff, and then you assumed not only that it was true, but that the dripping stuff must be the molten form of the other stuff on which it was found. Of course, that logic would lead you to the conclusion that molten concrete was found as well. And, from all of that, you've then jumped to some conclusion that this imaginary molten stuff must've been melted by thermite because you know that thermite was used to take down the buildings because of the melted stuff found there. IOW, you know that A caused B because you know that B caused A, which you know because A caused B, because you know........ That's the sum total of your theory. In short, it's that the towers were melted to the ground like giant candles, but that they were also pulverized and disintegrated to the point where only the steel survived. The same steel that you say was melted. So thermite melts steel, and then causes the disintegration of everything else. Have you ever done any calculations to show how much thermite would be required to totally pulverize two, fully occupied of the tallest towers in the world, contents, people, and all, plus melt enough steel to produce lava flows of molten steel?
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 09:12 In news:hbmv4h$6qv$2(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: > >>>>> 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? > >> And that was true. All the quotes you had provided to that >> point said "molten metal". > > Let's simplify this even more for you. What's the second word > between the quote below, all nut job? DO you see the word metal, > or the word steel? But at that time, that's not what YOU were saying, no matter what lies you tell now.
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 09:13 In news:hbmv8e$6qv$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: > > >>>> 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> > >> So if it had been dripping from concrete, would that make it >> molten concrete? > > You seem to think so, but of course, you're a nut job No amount ot cutting an pasting will save you from answering a simple question.... So if it had been dripping from concrete, would that make it molten concrete?
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 09:14 In news:hbmvk3$7tf$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> 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. > >> Sure you did. > > But of course you can't produce the quote or the post where > I made that claim sure I can.
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 09:15
In news:hbmvst$8dj$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> 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." > >> Your point? > > That when conspiracy kook nut jobs claim that WTC7 suffered > severe structural damage, they're revealing more of their > extreme ignorance, obviously. Are you saying that it wasn't damaged, or wasn't on fire for hours? |