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 27 Oct 2009 13:41 In news:hc7avi$eof$7(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hbsd7o$44d$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>>>>> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html > >>>>>>> "Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from >>>>>>> the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the >>>>>>> resulting structural damage had little effect in causing >>>>>>> the collapse of WTC 7." > >>>>>> No, they got it right, too. > >>>>> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. > >>>> I agree. Even the government, as stupid as it is, can get >>>> something right, as it did in this case. Nice to see that you >>>> can now agree that they did so. :-) > >>> Have fun trying to explain that to ironhead. It still "thinks" >>> that "tens of thousands of tons of free falling steel girders" >>> hit WTC7. > >> I don't have to. He already agreed. > > So, you and ironhead agree with NIST and 9-11 Truth experts > that WTC7 suffered no significant damage from debris impacts, The NIST never said that.
From: AllYou! on 27 Oct 2009 13:42 In news:hc7aut$eof$6(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hbmuvq$6qv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> Can you find the words "molten steel" > >> You can't > > Yes I can. Nope.
From: AllYou! on 27 Oct 2009 14:08 In news:hc7b2r$eof$10(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>> Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they >>>> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > >>> You're lying and being very stupid and illiterate again, nut >>> job. Here are two of the quotes that you failed to comprehend >>> because you're barely literate and you're insane. > >>> "The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, >>> described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 >>> days after the attacks." > >> He was there? > > One step at a time for you, And the 1st step is to tell me if he was there. Was he? >>> Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? >>> <chuckle> > >>> "A witness said ?In the first few weeks, sometimes when a >>> worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of >>> the beam would be dripping molten steel". > >> How does that worker know the difference between molten steel, >> and molten metal other than steel? > > One step at a time for you, And the first step is to tell me who that witness was, and whether or not he said that he saw molten steel, and whether or not he knew that it WAS molten steel. >>> Can you find the words "molten steel" in that quote, nut job? >>> If not, is there anyone nearby who is sane and literate that >>> could help you find it, nut job? <chuckle> > >> Still exceeding your own definition of a whacko. Hmmmmmm.
From: AllYou! on 27 Oct 2009 14:09 In news:hc7b44$eof$11(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> Henry wrote: > >>>>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >>>>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop >>>>> straight down onto its own footprint? > >>>> Yes. > >>> Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing >>> tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they >>> did it? > >>> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ > >>> I wonder if the other magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks are >>> embarrassed by the level of your insanity yet? <chuckle> > > >> Prove they were faked. > > Learn how to read and think, nut job. They're not faked. Then what's your problem?
From: Iarnrod on 27 Oct 2009 14:28
On Oct 27, 11:32 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > Innews:hbnoq8$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 ironhead. It still "thinks" that > "tens of thousands of tons of free falling steel girders" hit WTC7. > <chuckle> And I am right!<snicker> It's all on the videos and photos, Self- Admitted Fired Failure as a Janitor! It's funny how Hankie says something and then as proof cites NIST which agrees with ME and disagrees with him. |