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 18:34 In news:hbnoq8$kd8$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > 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. I agree. Even the government, as stupid as it is, can get something right, as it did in this case. Nice to see that you can now agree that they did so. :-)
From: Al Dykes on 21 Oct 2009 20:03 In article <hbndn3$19e$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Can you find the words "molten steel". If so, please >>> point them out to all nut job. He says they're not there and >>> I'm lying when I say they are. But of course, he is a nut >>> job... <g> > >> Nobody saw molten steel on the pile at WTC. > > Dozens of people did, but that's not the question. You lost Nobody says "I saw" or anything equal. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 21 Oct 2009 20:03 In article <hbnlvk$ed3$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Iarnrod wrote: >> On Oct 21, 10:43 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: > >>>> Nobody saw molten steel on the pile at WTC. > >>> Dozens of people did, > >> Well then why > > They saw it because it was there, nut job. That's why. <chuckle> > >Evidence of molten metal is well documented. > >http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) >http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320818/pg1 >http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf > And nobody says "I saw". -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Henry on 23 Oct 2009 10:05 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hbnoq8$kd8$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> 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. > I agree. Even the government, as stupid as it is, can get something > right, as it did in this case. Nice to see that you can now agree > that they did so. :-) Have fun trying to explain that to ironhead. It still "thinks" that "tens of thousands of tons of free falling steel girders" hit WTC7. <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 23 Oct 2009 10:07
AllYou! wrote: > 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 |