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 27 Oct 2009 13:34 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> 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." http://www.911blogger.com/node/17554 -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 27 Oct 2009 13:34 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hbmuvq$6qv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> Can you find the words "molten steel" > You can't Yes I can. Why do you lie and act like you're insane? Here's your quote: "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? "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". Let's simplify this even more for you. What's the second word between the quote below, all nut job? Do you see the word metal, or the word steel? "molten steel". -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 27 Oct 2009 13:34 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: Henry on 27 Oct 2009 13:36 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >>> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? >> You're lying and being very stupid and illiterate again, nut >> job. Here are two of the quotes that you failed to comprehend >> because you're barely literate and you're insane. >> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >> described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >> days after the attacks." > He was there? One step at a time for you, nut job. You said that no one I quoted mentioned molten steel, and that by claiming they did, I was lying. Do you now see you were dead wrong again and that you're a lying, insane nut job? >> Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? >> <chuckle> >> "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". > How does that worker know the difference between molten steel, and > molten metal other than steel? One step at a time for you, nut job. You said that no one quoted mentioned molten steel, and that by claiming they did, I was lying. Do you now see you were dead wrong again and that you're a lying, insane nut job? >> Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? If >> not, is there anyone nearby who is sane and literate that could >> help you find it, nut job? <chuckle> > Still exceeding your own definition of a whacko. Did you find the words "molten steel", ya silly, psychotic, deluded, lying nut job? If not, is there anyone nearby who is sane and literate that could help you find it, nut job? <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 27 Oct 2009 13:38
In news:hc7as3$eof$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >>> 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. Explain that the government can get something right once in a while? What makes you think he doesn't agree? They got the reason for the WTC destruction right, and he agrees with that. |