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: Iarnrod on 21 Oct 2009 14:39 On Oct 21, 10:43 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> 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 the pile at WTC. > > Dozens of people did, Well then why, Self-Admitted Fired Janitor, have you been incapable for eight years now of NAMING ONE? <chuckle>
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 14:49 AllYou! wrote: > 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 and not only do 9-11 truth experts > agree, but even government hired "researchers" agree with it. > Only usenet nut jobs like yourself reveal their extrme ignorance > and insanity by denying it, nut job.. Thanks for proving my point again... <chuckle> > You're saying it's reality As is NIST, FEMA, and pretty much everyone but you and ironhead. <chuckle> > but you have no evidence of it at all So nut job, since it's you who is making the claim that WTC7 suffered severe structural damage, it's up to you to prove that the rest of the world is wrong. Here's FEMA's evidence that it didn't. WTC7 was at the outer limits of the debris field. http://www.911blogger.com/node/17554 -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 14:58 Iarnrod wrote: > 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> >> Can you find the words "molten steel". > Can you They're in both of the quotes, nut job... <chuckle> "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". -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 15:01 Ironhead amused its many betters with: > Henry proved: >> 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> So, NIST, FEMA, and 9-11 truth experts are all wrong, but some clueless nut job on usenet that calls itself ironhead is right? For a nut job, you at least have the ability to slightly amuse your many better, nut job.. <g> 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." http://www.911blogger.com/node/17554 -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 15:06
In news:hbnl45$dmb$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> 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 and not only do 9-11 truth experts >> agree, but even government hired "researchers" agree with it. >> Only usenet nut jobs like yourself reveal their extrme ignorance >> and insanity by denying it, nut job.. Thanks for proving my >> point > again... <chuckle> > > >> You're saying it's reality > > As is NIST, FEMA, and pretty much everyone but you and > ironhead. <chuckle> Where, in any documents, do NIST or FEMA say "when conspiracy kook nut jobs claim that WTC7 suffered severe structural damage, they're revealing more of their extreme ignorance, obviously."? >> but you have no evidence of it at all > > So nut job, since it's you who is making the claim that WTC7 > suffered severe structural damage, it's up to you to prove that > the rest of the world is wrong. > Here's FEMA's evidence that it didn't. WTC7 was at the outer > limits of the debris field. > > http://www.911blogger.com/node/17554 > > > > > -- > > http://911research.wtc7.net > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ > http://www.ae911truth.org |