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 Sep 2009 19:53 On Sep 21, 4:09 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 21, 2:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > > > > Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > > On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > >> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > >>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 > > >>>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > > >>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > > >>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > > >>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > > >>> Doesn't matter. > > >>> "Multiple jet hits." > > > >> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > > >> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed > > >> to be insulated. > > > > REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes > > > crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? > > > Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? It's no wonder > > you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple English! > > The designer was talking about how the towers were designed to > > withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever else might > > result from a plane crash. > > Oh yea, they forgot about that.... What you fail to understand is that just because the designer says he took something into account doesn't mean it actually worked, Q.E.D.
From: knews4u2chew on 21 Sep 2009 20:09 On Sep 21, 2:55 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:022011d6-3a06-4ab3-954b-1da30f897a78(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > > > On Sep 21, 12:29 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791085(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>> On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > >>>> In article > >>>> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, > > >>>> AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >>>>> In > >>>>>news:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > >>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern > >>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > >>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > >>>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > >>>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > >>>>>> Doesn't matter. > >>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." > > >>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. > >>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is > >>>>> supposed to be insulated. > > >>>> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures > >>>> expert > >>>> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no > >>>> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built > >>>> to > >>>> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all > >>>> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were > >>>> unique in > >>>> the minimal fireproofing. > > >>>> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud[Page 310, Report From Ground > >>>> Zero] > > >>>> Who is Vincent Dunn? > >>>>http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn > > >>> And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?" > > >> Can you dispute the report? > > > The report ignores evidence "it didn't look for." > > Yes, it did not look for evidence of aliens from space, and so it > was ignored. I'll grant you that one. But, unlike you, it didn't > ignore why structural steel buildings need fireproofing. Why do you > keep avoiding answering that question? http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm www.ae911truth.org
From: Iarnrod on 21 Sep 2009 22:31 On Sep 21, 6:09 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 21, 2:55 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > > > > Innews:022011d6-3a06-4ab3-954b-1da30f897a78(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com, > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > > On Sep 21, 12:29 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > >> Innews:ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791085(a)m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > >>> On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > > >>>> In article > > >>>> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, > > > >>>> AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > >>>>> In > > >>>>>news:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > > >>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > >>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern > > >>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > > >>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > > >>>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > > >>>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > > >>>>>> Doesn't matter. > > >>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." > > > >>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. > > >>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is > > >>>>> supposed to be insulated. > > > >>>> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures > > >>>> expert > > >>>> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no > > >>>> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built > > >>>> to > > >>>> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all > > >>>> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were > > >>>> unique in > > >>>> the minimal fireproofing. > > > >>>> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud[Page 310, Report From Ground > > >>>> Zero] > > > >>>> Who is Vincent Dunn? > > >>>>http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn > > > >>> And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?" > > > >> Can you dispute the report? > > > > The report ignores evidence "it didn't look for." > > > Yes, it did not look for evidence of aliens from space, and so it > > was ignored. I'll grant you that one. But, unlike you, it didn't > > ignore why structural steel buildings need fireproofing. Why do you > > keep avoiding answering that question? > > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htmwww.ae911truth.org These sites propound the same debunked lies, all disproven by physics, facts, witnesses, videos, science et al. We know what happened, and what caused the structural collapse, and it has been proven to be physically impossible for the collapses to have been controlled demolition -- what a ludicrous notion the troofer theory is!!
From: Daniel on 21 Sep 2009 23:49 On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 > >>>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > >>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > >>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > >>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > >>> Doesn't matter. > >>> "Multiple jet hits." > > >> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > >> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed > >> to be insulated. > > > REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes > > crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? > > Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? In your previous post. > It's no wonder > you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple English! > The designer was talking about how the towers were designed to > withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever else might > result from a plane crash. How could the designer design the building to withstand impacts from planes that hadn't even been designed?
From: Iarnrod on 22 Sep 2009 00:07
On Sep 21, 9:49 pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > > > > Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > > On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > >> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > >>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 > > >>>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > > >>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > > >>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > > >>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > > >>> Doesn't matter. > > >>> "Multiple jet hits." > > > >> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > > >> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed > > >> to be insulated. > > > > REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes > > > crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? > > > Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? > > In your previous post. > > > It's no wonder > > you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple English! > > The designer was talking about how the towers were designed to > > withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever else might > > result from a plane crash. > > How could the designer design the building to withstand impacts from > planes that hadn't even been designed? The same way you could pretend to be in the military and claim to have proof but then say "NO" when asked to post what you said you would post -- by LYING. |