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 23 Oct 2009 19:05 On Oct 23, 8:08 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > 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, You're the one who says they're wrong. You are the one disagreeing with them. But wait, why are you pretending to agree with them when your whole theory rests on them being wrong? BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! Failed Janitor Boy can't keep his delusions straight! > but > some clueless nut job on usenet that calls itself ironhead > is right? Who is that, Janitor Boy? My statements are in complete agreement with NIST and FEMA; yours is not. You claim debris did not damage WTC7 and point to NIST and FEMA. Yet in your very cite, NIST and FEMA **confirm** the damage. Why do you post the proof that I am right and pretend it says you are right? Is it the residual brain damage from the chemicals you sniff?
From: Iarnrod on 23 Oct 2009 19:08 On Oct 23, 8:17 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:hbsd7o$44d$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(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. Someone needs to explain to Hankie the Self-Admitted Failure as a Fired Janitor that a) I am correct and NIST and FEMA agreed, tens of thousands of tons of free-falling girders and flaming debris did indeed hit WTC7 (it's in all the videos) and set fires and caused massive structural damage; NIST merely says that damage was not a significant factor int he collapse, not that it didnt' occur at all, and b) I am not a "he," I am a she.
From: AllYou! on 24 Oct 2009 00:30 In news:hbsdct$44d$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> And despite this government incompetence, your whole theory >> rests on the notion > > Wrong, nut job. What could possibly be wrong about the half the snetence to which you're responsing? That the government is incompetent? >> 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 built a space station. You fell for that one? What makes you think there''s a space station?
From: AllYou! on 24 Oct 2009 00:32 In news:hbsdd8$44d$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Iarnrod wrote: > >> Can you > > They're in both of the quotes, nut job... <chuckle> Yes, you know how to put words in quotes. What's your point? > "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, > described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 > days after the attacks." Prove it. Provide a quote from that structural engineer, by name. > "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". Prove it. Produce that witness, and produde a quote directly from him.
From: AllYou! on 24 Oct 2009 00:33
In news:hbsdds$44d$5(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, 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> No, you;'re wrong about what those reports said. |