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 13:45 In news:hbne4u$1qc$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> 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. > > I'm also saying it's reality You're saying it's reality, but you have no evidence of it at all, and no science that could possibly back it up. to you, someone saying something about something that they think is something is reality.
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 13:53 In news:hbnee2$2bq$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Curly Surmudgeon wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:36:29 -0400, Henry >> <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be >>> intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off >>> their >>> transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control >>> ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy >>> Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is >>> rotten in the State.' " > >> This is the under reported story of 9-11. > > Just one of many.... > >> Such an event is so wildly >> improbable to be impossible. > > Like the fire induced demolition of a steel framed high rise. > And not *one* person responsible for what conspiracy theorists > claim was a series of "security failures" were reprimanded. In > fact, most of them were actually promoted for "failing" to do > their jobs. And despite this government incompetence, your whole theory rests on the notion that the government is so competent that they could pull off this kind of event so perfectly and so secretly that virtually the whole world would by it, and that no one person of what would've had to have been thousands of people involved would ever have come forward. So is the government competent, or not?
From: Iarnrod on 21 Oct 2009 14:31 On Oct 21, 6:31 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> AllYou! wrote: > >>> Henry <9-11tr...(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". Can you find the words"I saw?" > If so, please > point them out to all nut job. If so, please point them out, nut job. When's your unemployment run out from being fired from you janitor job?
From: Iarnrod on 21 Oct 2009 14:34 On Oct 21, 8:14 am, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > 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? The part where your delusions convince you that WTC7 was not massively damaged by tens of thousands of tons of free falling steel girders and flaming debris from WTC1 <snicker> It ripped a deep gouge out of up to half the height of the south facade. I wouldn't expect a self-admitted fired janitor to be up on all this, of course <chuckle>
From: Iarnrod on 21 Oct 2009 14:39
On Oct 21, 10:08 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...(a)live.com> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:36:29 -0400, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted > > when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, > > or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure > > facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. > > It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' " > > This is the under reported story of 9-11. Such an event is so wildly > improbable to be impossible. You're wrong, of course. You watch too much Hollywood. There is NO WAY that prior to 9/11, a domestic commercial flight deviating from its flight plan was automatically "intercepted" by the military. It just didn't happen that way. There are tens of thousands of flights a day. Things take time to unfold, and the al Qaeda hijackers had that window of surprise in which to operate. It was all over before the reaction could catch up. |