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 10:49 In news:hbn4l4$ev0$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > 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: So you've got no direct testimony from anyone who claims to have seen molten steel, much less from anyone who knows that it was steel instead of something else. > "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, > described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 > days after the attacks." Thanks for providing proof that nowhere have you ever been able to quote the engineer directly. In fact, you don't even attribute the quote you keep posting to anyone in particular. > "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". Again, thanks for providing an unattributed quote of someone who says that some, unidentifed 'witness' <grin> said something. > 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". Yes, the second word that you keep posting is 'steel'. Posting an amalgam of unsupported words, interlaced with insults, on the internet is about as much proof as you have for your position.
From: Al Dykes on 21 Oct 2009 10:49 In article <hbmuvq$6qv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>> And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" >>>>> in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being >>>>> you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> > >>>>> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >>>>> described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >>>>> days after the attacks." > >>>>> "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker >>>>> would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam >>>>> would be dripping molten steel". > >>>> That's right > >>> Here's your quote, nut job: > >>> "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >>> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > >>> Still can't find the words "molten steel" in those quotes, >>> eh, nut job? Yes, you are quite clearly completely insane. >>> Thanks for proving my point so convincingly. <vbg> > >> What we can't find in those quotes is > > > Can you find the words "molten steel". If so, please >point them out to all nut job. He says they're not there and >I'm lying when I say they are. But of course, he is a nut >job... <g> Nobody saw molten steel on thepile at WTC. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 10:49 In news:hbn4sc$ev0$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>>>> Just like you know that beams weighing thousands of tons >>>>>> each landed 600 feet from the WTC? > >>>>> I never made that claim, nut job. You sure do lie a lot. >>>>> Sure you did. > >>> But of course you can't produce the quote or the post where >>> I made that claim > >> sure I can. > > We're not interested in what you can do Obviously, you are, because you said that I couldn't.
From: Al Dykes on 21 Oct 2009 10:50 In article <hbn4iq$ev0$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hbmuvq$6qv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> Can you find the words "molten steel" > >> You can't > > Yes I can. Why do you lie and act like you're insane? >Here's your quote: > > "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > > >"The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >days after the attacks." > >"A witness said "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker >would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam >would be dripping molten steel". > > > Let's simplify this even more for you. What's the second word >between the quote below, all nut job? Do you see the word metal, >or the word steel? > > "molten steel". WHn you find the source for those quotes, you'll find that all the tellings are scoond-hand. We have no eyewitness accounts of molten steel on the pile. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 10:50
In news:hbn510$ev0$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > 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> I know you're saying that because it's about as much as you can say in support of your position. But are you also saying that it wasn't damaged, or wasn't on fire for hours? |