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: Henry on 23 Oct 2009 10:11 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hb7gjv$5m2$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> Iarnrod wrote: >>> On Oct 15, 9:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> You're still not making any sense, nut job. >>> I know that having been fired from your janitor job >> Just like you "know" that two planes hit WTC7, and that >> a controlled demolition displays none of the >> characteristics of a controlled demolition. <chuckle> >> What you "think" you "know" is easily proved to be at >> odds with reality, nut job... <vbg> > Just like you know that beams weighing thousands of tons each landed > 600 feet from the WTC? I never made that claim, nut job. You sure do lie a lot. > As to your claim, prove that it's been proven, because no other > building has been damaged that severly, and had to withstand > fires for that long. Ever. You're either *completely* ignorant of the facts or deliberately lying. Either way, thanks, because you're making a complete joke of yourself and your insane conspiracy theory. Even NIST has been forced to admit that structural damage from the tower demolitions played no significant role in WTC7's "collapse". As always, here's hard proof of your ignorance, lies, and insanty. 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." And of course, many high rise buildings have suffered fires of far greater size, intensity, and duration than the minor, oxygen starved office fires in WTC7 without collapsing. Google One Meridian Plaza yourself. Never mind, you're far to helpless and stupid - I'll do that for you too, nut job. http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html "A fire on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, was reported to the Philadelphia Fire Department on February 23, 1991 at approximately 2040 hours and burned for more than 19 hours. The fire caused three firefighter fatalities and injuries to 24 firefighters. The 12-alarms brought 51 engine companies, 15 ladder companies, 11 specialized units, and over 300 firefighters to the scene. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building.." Notice that the Meridian Plaza inferno raged for "more than 19 hours", nut job. WTC7 caught fire around 10:00 and was demolished at 5:20. How many hours is that, nut job? Never mind, I'll figure that out for you too. I doubt you can do math, either. 10:00AM to 5:20PM is 7 hours and 20 minutes, nut job. What's longer, 19 hours or 7 hours and 20 minutes, nut job? Is there someone nearby with a working mind who you could ask? Your lies and idiocy are getting so blatant and extreme that at this point there's no doubt that you're either mentally ill, or you're deliberately trying to make followers of the official cartoon conspiracy theory seem even more clueless, deluded, and stupid than usual - which is no easy feat. It doesn't really matter which is the case, but I'd like to thank you for helping 9-11 Truth advocates prove their case and expose Bush parrots as deluded, ignorant, and utterly clueless nut jobs. Well done, nut job... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 23 Oct 2009 10:17 In news:hbsd7o$44d$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >>>>> 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. I don't have to. He already agreed.
From: Henry on 23 Oct 2009 12:48 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hbsd7o$44d$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>>>>> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html >>>>>> "Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from >>>>>> the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the >>>>>> resulting structural damage had little effect in causing >>>>>> the collapse of WTC 7." >>>>> No, they got it right, too. >>>> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. >>> I agree. Even the government, as stupid as it is, can get >>> something right, as it did in this case. Nice to see that you >>> can now agree that they did so. :-) >> Have fun trying to explain that to ironhead. It still "thinks" >> that "tens of thousands of tons of free falling steel girders" >> hit WTC7. > I don't have to. He already agreed. So, you and ironhead agree with NIST and 9-11 Truth experts that WTC7 suffered no significant damage from debris impacts, and you also agree that "tens of thousands of tons of free falling steel girders" hit WTC7. Your insanity is, at least, slightly amusing to your many betters..... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Iarnrod on 23 Oct 2009 19:01 On Oct 23, 8:05 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > Innews:hbnoq8$kd8$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >> AllYou! wrote: > >>> Henry <9-11tr...(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 Iarnrod, my better. She still "thinks" that > "tens of thousands of tons of free falling steel girders" hit WTC7. > <chuckle> It did, janitor boy. Proven fact shown on video and photos and fully documented in witness testimony by FDNY. You must have been fired already and weren't involbved in the cleanup! <chuckle>
From: Iarnrod on 23 Oct 2009 19:02
On Oct 23, 8:08 am, Hankie the Self-Admitted Failure as a Janitor Boy <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > They're in both of the ... No they're not, Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. NO ONE says "I saw." But do keep lookin', KKKook! |