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 21 Oct 2009 10:07 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hbmuvq$6qv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> Can you find the words "molten steel" > You can't Yes I can. Why do you lie and act like you're insane? Here's 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? "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". 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? "molten steel". -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 10:08 AllYou! wrote: > 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" Never said I could, nut job. Here's what you said, lying 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? "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". 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? "molten steel". -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 10:12 AllYou! wrote: > 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. We're not interested in what you can do in your deluded and insane "mind" nut job. Hard truth is, you can't produce the quote or the post where I made that claim here in reality. Thanks for proving my point, nut job... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 10:14 AllYou! wrote: > 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? I'm saying that when conspiracy kook nut jobs claim that WTC7 suffered severe structural damage, they're revealing more of their extreme ignorance, obviously. What part of that do you find confusing, nut job? <vbg> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 10:27
In news:hbn4iq$ev0$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hbmuvq$6qv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> Can you find the words "molten steel" > >> You can't > > Yes I can. Except that conversation, as you reposted it, never took place. |