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 15:11 In news:hbnlgv$ed3$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >>> Like the fire induced demolition of a steel framed high rise. >>> And not *one* person responsible for what conspiracy theorists >>> claim was a series of "security failures" were reprimanded. In >>> fact, most of them were actually promoted for "failing" to do >>> their jobs. > >> And despite this government incompetence, your whole theory >> rests on the notion > > Wrong, nut job. What can be wrong about the truncated sentence above? > *All* the evidence proves that 9-11 was an > inside job, not just the proof of the Bush regime';s complicity. > You're still not reading or thinking clearly, nut job. Well, if you consider a bunch of arm waving, and unattributed quotes from people who are quoting unnamed and unknown people, and fantastic assertions that defy the laws of physics 'evidence', then yes, you've got lots of evidence. >> that the government is so competent that they could pull off >> this kind of event > > And you "think" some guy living in a cave thousands of miles > away without so much as a cell phone is is more capable of > pulling it off than an organization that put a man on the moon > or build a space station. Yep, you are quite clearly insane... > Thanks for proving my point yet again, nut job... What evidence do you have that the government ever put a man on the moon? You didn't really fall for that one, did you?
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 15:13 In news:hbnlk4$ed3$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: >> On Oct 21, 6:31 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>>>> And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" >>>>>>> in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being >>>>>>> you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> > >>>>>>> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the >>>>>>> WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still >>>>>>> running 21 days after the attacks." >>>>>>> "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a >>>>>>> worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end >>>>>>> of the beam would be dripping molten steel". > >>>>>> That's right > >>>>> Here's your quote, nut job: > >>>>> "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that >>>>> they called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about >>>>> that? > >>>>> Still can't find the words "molten steel" in those quotes, >>>>> eh, nut job? Yes, you are quite clearly completely insane. >>>>> Thanks for proving my point so convincingly. <vbg> > >>> Can you find the words "molten steel". > >> Can you > > They're in both of the quotes, nut job... <chuckle> > > > "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, > described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 > days after the attacks." Why have you never been able to provide a quote to that effect directly from that structural engineer? > "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker > would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam > would be dripping molten steel". Why have you never been able to produce that witness by name, and provide a direct quote of what he or she actually said?
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 15:13 In news:hbnlr7$ed3$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Ironhead amused its many betters with: >> Henry proved: > >>> I'm saying that when conspiracy kook nut jobs claim that WTC7 >>> suffered severe structural damage, they're revealing more of >>> their extreme ignorance, obviously. What part of that do you >>> find confusing, nut job? > >> The part where your delusions convince you that WTC7 was not >> massively damaged by tens of thousands of tons of free falling >> steel girders and flaming debris from WTC1 <snicker> > > > So, NIST, FEMA, and 9-11 truth experts are all wrong, No, they got it right, too.
From: AllYou! on 21 Oct 2009 15:37 In news:hbnlvk$ed3$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: >> On Oct 21, 10:43 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: > >>>> Nobody saw molten steel on the pile at WTC. > >>> Dozens of people did, > >> Well then why > > They saw it because it was there, nut job. That's why. <chuckle> Then prove that they saw it. > Evidence of molten metal is well documented. Yes, molten metal was found at the WTC site. There might even have been very small bits of steel that had been molten at one time found there as well. But there are no attributable quotes from identifiable sources to the effect that anyone saw, for themselves, steel in the molten state. If there was, you would've posted them by now, and you have not. > http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) This one talks about how there's evidence that pieces of steel show evidence, which can only be seen on micrographs, that some edges of some steel had once been subjected to melting temperatures. When a structural steel building is built, and when a huge pile of structural steel has to be cut to be removed from a site, lots and lots of it has to be cut with torches. Of course some edges of some of the steel will show evidence of that. > http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320818/pg1 This link is to a 911 consiracy forum, and so you'll have to be more specific. > http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf > Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten metal > "flowing like lava - like a "foundry" > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM > > The molten metal observed flowing like lava deep in the > WTC rubble can't be explained by fires. There's no evidence that it ever existed. > Demolition explains > it perfectly. Then why isn't there ever any molten steel flowing like lava at any controlled demoltion sites? And when has a building ever been demolished with thermite? > Fires can't explain the virtual free fall speed Fires can explain how the support columns at WTC7 failed due to weakening as a result of both the heat from the fires, as well as the fact that the remaining columns were supporting much more load than that for which they were designed. > or the near perfect symmetry of the explosive collapses, either. > Demolition explains that, and all the other evidence perfectly. The symitry of the supporting columns that failed support the reason why WTC7 fell as it did, whether you want to call it symetrical, or not. > Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after > 9/11? What kind of metal, and how much? > Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the > Twin Towers collapsed: From where was it flowing, and to where was it flowing? Must've been lots and lots, and from way uphill to way down hill for that to happen. Why didn't anyone see it? > New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so > intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." Name a firefighter who said that, and provide an exact quote, and tell me how a firefighter would know the difference between molten lead, and molten steel.
From: Henry on 21 Oct 2009 15:52
AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> 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, >> 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." > No, they got it right, too. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Good luck getting through to ironhead, though...... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |